Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS. Archives of past nominations can be found here.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

A blurb is a one sentence summary of the news story. An alternate suggestion for the blurb is called an altblurb, and any more suggestions get labelled alt1, alt2, etc. A blurb needs at least one target article, highlighted in bold; reviewers check the quality of that article and whether it is updated, and whether reliable sources demonstrate the significance of the event. Other articles can also be linked. The Ongoing line is for regularly updated articles which cover events that remain in the news over a longer period of time. RD stands for the "recent deaths" line, and can include any living thing whose death was recently announced. In some cases, recent deaths may need additional explanation as provided by a blurb; this is decided by consensus.

Yasin Malik in 2006
Yasin Malik

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated).
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers[edit]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

  1. add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  2. 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.
  3. accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  4. comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. The criteria can be discussed at the relevant talk page.

Please be encouraged to...[edit]

  1. pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. Maybe the previous reviewer has missed a problem, or an identified problem has now been fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes may also help administrators identify items that are ready for promotion to the ITN template on MainPage.
  3. point out problematic areas in the nominated article and, if appropriate, suggest how to fix them. If you know exactly what to do, by all means, go ahead and fix it as you see fit.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives[edit]

May 29[edit]


May 28[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Bujar Nishani[edit]

Article: Bujar Nishani (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WaPo, CNN A2
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]

  • Comment I had planned to nominate it as well, since I started editing it. Between tomorrow and the next day I will try to expand the content and add more references. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cannes Film Festival[edit]

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)
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]

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]

  • Oppose - Article needs a lot of work. No match summary, no prose in the Road to the final, several unsourced paragraphs, and not enough information on the pre-match entry issues. SounderBruce 21:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 27[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections


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]

  • Oppose on quality, a lot of cn tags must be fixed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, notable figure, read the AP source to see his notability Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:05, 28 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." Notability is not to be considered, unless there is a blurb to consider. --PFHLai (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 26[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports


International Booker Prize[edit]

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]

  • Given that the prize is awarded to the book (with recognition of the author and translator), rather as an award to the author, the book should really be a target article here, and in that situation, it needs lots of help. --Masem (t) 18:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have been seeing greater recognition of translators in recent times but unfortunately the translator here does not appear to have an article. Would be great if Daisy Rockwell can be blue-linked as well. Gotitbro (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a currently a Draft:Daisy Rockwell which could use editing. Joofjoof (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(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]

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:ONGOINGAviationFreak💬 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]

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): [1][2]
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]
  • Oppose per the usual requirements to source filmography etc. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The real sad thing is that you take out his filmography, and there's not a lot left of his biography :( Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, because although he was a reasonable actor, I think I could list 100 actors right now who are more prominent than he was and they wouldn't be blurbed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb for obvious reasons. DzhungarRabbit (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose The filmography section is unsourced. I'm also weak oppose on a blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC) Support Article looks good. I remember when I strongly supported Jean Paul Belmondo for getting a blurb and one of the requirements was that there be a "legacy" section or something that highlighted his impact on French cinema. If such can be done for Liotta then I might lean towards a blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. Unexpected, here death is the story. And he is worldwide known, prolific actor with career ranging from crime films to comedies. I added one more reliable source.Kirill C1 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb I don't think I'll be looking out for Death of Ray Liotta or Funeral of Ray Liotta. Unexpected, sure, tragic, definitely, blurb-worthy? Absolutely not in a million years. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is extremely famous for Goodfellas and numerous other films. It is possible that such article appears. The requirement for blurb is met. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fame is an insufficient condition to blurb someone's death. --Masem (t) 17:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Per Wikipedia:ITNRD: In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link.. Exceptions can be made on an exceptional basis for major figures like if the Queen died or something, but clearly blurbs are not intended to be used merely for deaths of famous people. If we allowed that, ITN would be clogged with death blurbs. 4iamking (talk) 17:46, 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 in the middle of filming and has several unreleased films. His death affects several other articles, which is one of the requirements for this type of blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Where do you get these "Requirements" from? 4iamking (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD Only Being a well-known actor isn't enough for the blurb. Quality looks acceptable, assuming we are OK with the filmography being shunted off into a separate article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD only blurbs are not for household names or famous people. They need to show being a transformative aspect to their field, and he clearly did not reach that. --Masem (t) 17:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD Only Fine. Grimes2 (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD Article looks adequate. Indifferent on blurb. Yeah, he was well known. But not an A lister. On the other hand, his death is surprising (and sad). -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are sources calling him legendary [3] [4]. Also, some views on him not being A-lister may differ "In 1990, Liotta reached A-List status with his iconic performance as Henry Hill in the Martin Scorsese classic "[5]. Variety calls him marquee name [6]. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:57, 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]
  • I don't think is ready, as the unsiurced filmography was spun out in the last few hours, burying the problem that TRM pointed out. That needs to be fixed. --Masem (t) 17:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jesus, what is this new metric for looking at someone who starred (lead actor) in what is considered one of the greatest American films of all time (per the Library of Congress and American Film Institute) and essentially saying "eh, tough titty"? Trillfendi (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    C'mon, Muppets from Space isn't that good... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    His honey business was controversial. Joofjoof (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I felt myself groaning "Oh, no" the moment I saw someone had tried to propose a blurb for this. It always devolves into the same thing, what amounts to a mudslinging upon the dead as editors vie to proclaim that the deceased wasn't sui generis or Mandela-esque enough to warrant a blurb. Let's please not do this again. For the record, RD only.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD Only Unfortunate news, but I think some of us might be overestimating how influential Liotta was. Will Malcolm McDowell get a blurb? What about Keir Dullea? Did Danny Aiello get one? Anyway, Ray Liotta filmography needs a lot of work sourcing-wise. And I'm not so sure about the first few citations in the actor's article. Mooonswimmer 18:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD only And should be added quickly. Inexpiable (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD when ready, oppose blurb. Clear difference between a transformative actor and just a popular one (who should have gotten an Oscar for Goodfellas, but I digress). De Niro will one day sadly get a blurb, but that's the high standard it should be, in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RD Unsourced filmography. Forking doesn't fix that. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD only—Ray Liotta is a well-known, accredited actor whose legacy includes legendary performances in works like Goodfellas or Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. However, I feel that an actor being given an ITN blurb requires a truly extraordinary career, something that is above and beyond merely being famous; they have to be iconic on an entirely different level. If we were talking about someone like Dustin Hoffman, Al Pacino, or even the likes of Johnny Depp or Samuel L. Jackson, then I think the argument could be made. Ray Liotta? He's a noteworthy actor, yes, but I don't think he quite makes it to blurb-worthy status. Kurtis (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, and this looks ready to go. I think Kurtis above has laid out the same thoughts that I had. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose again why are we repeating his image, and where did the filmography go? This is not an appropriate use of a content fork, just to rush a nomination to the main page. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I'd argue it was definitely of sufficient length to warrant forking... Made the old page look ridiculous, as it probably took up half the article height. Although I do absolutely agree we shouldn't post until the new fork is up to par. Been working on it; slowly getting there. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 22:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I'd argue you're completely wrong. The fork would only be warranted if the rest if the article was huge and needed splitting for length reasons. Which is plainly not the case, and now the filmography is just empty on this page for no reason. Once it's put back we can continue considering whether it's up nto par.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry all - my bad. I thought it would be a good solution in this case. Big thanks to Buttons for doing all the sourcing on that, too! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb dozens of actors born in his decade can be found that are more impactful than him. No impact disclosed in article. Definitely not equivalent to a world leading international-quality sportsperson, professor etc etc Oppose RD due to inappropriate cutting of core info Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking as ready for RD. Discussion for blurb can continue, although the trend seems to be in opposition. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Not at all ready for RD, as the filmography has been illegitimately forked off simply to get around it not being cited. Please return it to the article and cite it properly.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Photo RD Eventually Article needs work, and he didn't live like Robert De Niro nor die in storybook ending fashion, but did have beautiful eyes (relative to Yasin Malik's, anyway, not on Meg Foster's level). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD. Filmography has been put back and fully sourced, so looked good to do. Consensus for a blurb seems unlikely to develop, so will leave it at that.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five {cn} tags remain in the Filmography section. --PFHLai (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All dealt with now. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 14:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD only. He was a prolific, popular actor who was active until his unexpected, sudden death. However, he was nowhere near important enough for a blurb. Less than 1% of entertainers are. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb not probably in the 50 greatest/most well-known actors of his era (most of whom would also probably struggle to get blurbed), so definitely not blurb worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 27 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]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


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]

  • Support American literary agent, t's look crossed and i's duly dotted. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both reliable sources for his death say it was caused by heart failure. That's the pertinent information here, not that he also (implicitly) had/suffered from it for some unspecified time beforehand. It's not a dealbreaker, it's just weird, and not indicative of the article's state at this concerned citizen's officially declared time of support. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the article long enough? Green tickY Is it well cited? Green tickY Is it generally issue free? Green tickY I'd say that this article is READY for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:55, 28 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]

  • Weak support Relatively brief and could use additional depth about what was done in his roles but meets minimum standards as-is; referenced. SpencerT•C 16:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Partygate[edit]

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]
  • Consensus will not develop to post this.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose This was closed a few months ago, no? We already decided that, if action is ever taken (yeah right), then it can be blurbed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Blurb should be about the recently released Sue Gray report (i.e. in the news) on the scandal, not the belated criticisms. Gotitbro (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The image also does not signify anything perceivable, why is it blurred by the way? Gotitbro (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It comes from the aforementioned report. Presumably those blurred are civil servants who aren't relevant. We don't necessarily have to have the image on the ITN article, but it's there as an idea.
    Added a new blurb, hopefully that changes things. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This has been brewing for months, it is unclear from the blurb what the triggering event is to make it blurb-worthy now. Having that blurb linking to that article on the main page at this point in time will only confuse readers as to what Wikipedia is going on about. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a new blurb, may need editing down for length but that should lead us on the right track XxLuckyCxX (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Already discussed before; no meaningful updates since. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biased pseudo-support/In reality oppose I would expect every true patriot of their nation to try and expose corruption such as this in any manner they can. But nothing much has really happened, other than less-than-unexpected new revelations..--2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:FDB3:F16A:D072:DAAF (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest maybe striking the first half of the !vote/comment with it, in order to avoid any potential beliefs that we are here to WP:RGW. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's be honest, this whole nom is a WP:RGW in principle. WaltCip-(talk) 22:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, this isn't going to happen. Blurb literally equates to head of government gets criticised. Yes, and? If Boris resigns (or are pushed), then we can post the change in head of government under ITNR. -- KTC (talk) 23:16, 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]

  • Weak support - Good article, pretty notable for the region, and has caused some unrest in the region, not sure whether notable globally. نعم البدل (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not really newsworthy/notable outside of India and Pakistan. If this were some Proud Boys leader in the US, then I'm sure that it'd be shot down almost immediately. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 18:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fakescientist8000: Not to start an argument, but it's a bit unfair to portray the separatist movement as similar to the Proud boys. نعم البدل (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Point 2 of Voicing an opinion on an item discourages you from opposing because it relates to one country XxLuckyCxX (talk) 19:20, 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]
  • Support This is not quite as major as convicting the leader of a terrorist group but still significant to the region for several decades. --Masem (t) 19:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This seems to be a notable verdict from a clearly underrepresented region.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Notable for ITN but recent developments should be expanded a little more in the main body. –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Leader of a significant terrorist organization. Significant effects for the foreseeable future in the Kashmir region. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't know much about him/the related conflict, but it certainly is getting a lot of news coverage, certainly enough for ITN posting in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article appears to be in good shape, checking the news coverage indicates this is being covered by the news appropriately for ITN. --Jayron32 13:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all the above, plus anything to get yet another mass shooting off the main page. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment before it gets arbitrarily posted, can we write the blurb in decent English with some punctuation please? I've added an alt. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 26 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]
  • Weak Wait It does seem quite prevented, as of now, a dashed hope. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and see what the impact of this is. Right now, the article is short and the impact of this march is low- need to see if the impact increases significantly or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and see, per above Alex-h (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Any word on how 'long' it's gonna be? -- Sca (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Show's Over, Folks! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Imran Khan has given the government a 6 day ultimatum. This is most likely going to be a long process.  Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 07:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the article needs a lot of work as currently it is barely more than a stub. It also does not include any information about the violence used by the police, even though it is being covered heavily in the media. Needs a lot of work.  Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 08:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking back now - I agree - we should probably wait a bit, and to also improve the article. نعم البدل (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait – The long and short of it is, wait to see if something actually happens. – Sca (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The march has been called off thus its time to close this. Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 24[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Sports


(Posted) Texas school shooting[edit]

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

The 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]


  • Oppose on quality far from ready. Being a school shooting with 14 young students dead leads me to support it, although it is routine in America. For now I remain neutral. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alsoriano97: Article is looking pretty good rn. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:44, 24 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]
  • Oppose I would prefer if we don't have a permanent "US mass shooting" in the ITN blurb box. YD407OTZ (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Death toll is still described as "uncertain", but if true this would be the deadliest shooting in the US since 2019. Ionmars10 (talk) 21:39, 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]
  • Vehement support, you can't just wave off something of this significance and tell yourself, "You're okay and I'm okay"—especially when children have died. 169.234.70.134 (talk) 22:31, 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]
  • Support This American shooting has actually made headline news in Australia, on more than one outlet. (Most of them don't.) And I heard some American politician add love to thoughts and prayers, so he must really want to fix it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support probably in time for the next double digit mass shooting to also push this one off ITN later. Juxlos (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment -- Per local news reports, Texas Rangers now say 18 children, 3 adults have been killed. The death toll is now 21. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per NYT we have 19 people killed (18 students, 1 teacher) that's already two more than the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting (which had a blurb posted). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I would have opposed the blurb currently sitting on the main page, but this one is clearly of much longer-lasting significance. 2600:1700:1154:3500:FD29:76B1:8559:ABD (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Sandy Hook had 28 killed and basically zero long term significance so I doubt this one will have any. Juxlos (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Tragic event with a high death toll receiving widespread news coverage.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Elementary school shootings with a death toll this high are not routine. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Support, given that 2022 Buffalo shooting is still on the Main Page, and this is comparable or higher in significance given the age of the victims. Mz7 (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why should the 2022 Buffalo shooting make it to the front page but not this shooting? Thriley (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Motive here is unclear, there was a white supremacy motive in the Buffalo shooting which makes it more unique. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The racial angle made it appear that it might have some long-term impact. This has less impact. There is no indication that school shootings in the US have any effect; the deaths of children are regarded as an acceptable price to pay for freedom. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "The deaths of children are regarded as an acceptable price to pay for freedom" in this context is the most utterly repulsive sentence I've heard in a long time. 9563rj (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed, but I can't fault Hawkeye7 for openly voicing what so many gun rights activists in the US apparently believe. BusterD (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support more deaths than even buffalo. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support number of dead keeps going up, which makes it unique, and the ages of the victims makes it a bit unique as well. On the other hand I can see why others are saying this isn't unique, which I take into account as well. On shootings, it's all about how unique the shooting is. That's the standard I evaluate by. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but wait Two notable but unfortunate events can happen closely together, a racist attack livestreamed and the deliberate killing of children are both particularly noteworthy even though mass shootings as a whole in the US might not be. But we should wait for all points to come in before moving to post this. Gotitbro (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support largely due to the high (and growing!) number of dead, the significance of it being an elementary school, and the amount of coverage. I reiterate support for adding List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 to ongoing once this rolls off. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 00:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Unfortunately, the death toll is quite high and growing. Definitely a notable incident.--WMrapids (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose by default all mass shootings. Other than filling in the blanks (location, perp, number of deaths) there is very little of encyclopedia-value in any individual event. Who remembers any details about San Jose, Indianapolis, or Boulder? The sole case being made here is "that's the highest body count in a few years" & that just feels like we're rewarding it. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This seems to have been the mass shooting with the most deaths this year in 2022 in the U.S., with 21 deaths, 18 of which are children. AkiraRorschach (talk) 00:56, 25 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]
  • Support 21 deaths, 18 of which are young chidren. There's a lot of media outlets talking about it all over the world, it doesn't happen often. Their age too. Even if mass shootings in the US might happen sometimes, not on this level. Win8x (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. 9th deadliest shooting in the US history, their is a lot of school shootings in the united states but the death count is extremely high, deserves to be in the wikipedia main page. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 01:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose if we post this we might as well put List of mass shootings in the United States into Ongoing. Banedon (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Deadliest school shooting in a decade with 18 children killed deserves to be ITN. 9563rj (talk) 2:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Death toll at 19 and counting, deadliest elementary school shooting in a decade, appeared on international news such as BBC Article substantially improved, easy decision to support. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, IMHO the most influential US news item today. Will be the basis of the lead headline in every US newspaper tomorrow. That this is happening so frequently is EXACTLY the reason this needs to be ITN. BusterD (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I added Altblurb4. I think we need to say who's responsible for the ongoing carnage. What's especially newsworthy is that this happens over and over again, and nothing changes. Jehochman Talk 03:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Altblurb is a violation of W:NPOV. CR-1-AB (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do explain. He's on the record offering "prayers" (no "thoughts" yet), and he has not suggested anything that should be done to prevent future massacres. Perhaps the text can be finessed to be more accurate, especially if he has suggested something. If he suggests arming little school children with handguns, by all means, let's post it so the world knows what he's thinking. Jehochman Talk 03:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's one hell of an editorialization. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 03:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ted Cruz has suggested placing armed guards in elementary schools. Lets be thorough and say what happened, and why it's significant. Perhaps we can say that the shooting occurred, triggering calls for gun control by Democrats, and calls for more guns by Republicans. This helps the reader understand that it's at the heart of a major culture battle. The story is not only about half-a-busload of children being murdered. Jehochman Talk 04:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the job of an ITN blurb to "be thorough"; that's what the article is for. Funcrunch (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In the same way that we do not post every hurricane but only the worst ones, we do not post every mass shooting event in the United States but only the worst ones. This one qualifies as one of the worst ones, so I support. I support the original blurb as the best-worded blurb and oppose alt-blurb IV as being politically biased, even if I agree with where it's coming from. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for this shooting's large and shocking loss of life, and its presence on non-US news sites such as the Guardian, France24, etc. BirdValiant (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Governor Bashing He's just one middle man between the small arms trade and Uvalde Business Directory. What do you expect from him, magic? Support usual format. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've cut it back to be purely factual, but feel free to make other suggestions. It's his state where this happened, and his reaction is newsworthy. This story is about a mass shooting and a cultural phenomenon. Jehochman Talk 04:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still oddly specific. Especially in a blurb where even the murderer goes unblamed. Location and death toll was good enough (for our purposes) before and it's good enough yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure that every governor in every state with a school shooting has offered prayers for the victims; including this in the blurb adds nothing of value. Funcrunch (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt blurbs I to III, oppose alt blurb IV. It is definitely in international news. Steelkamp (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted – strong consensus for posting this story, with several opposing arguments being weak, cynical, or irrelevant. The article is of sufficient length and quality for posting. Excluded the shooter in the blurb deaths, unsure of how this distinction is handled. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good job, I feel that the shooter shouldn't be included in the death count. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Either count works, but active voice would make his exclusion truer (he was killed in a mass shooting, but a mass shooting didn't kill him). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @InedibleHulk: would "In the United States, a gunman kills 21 people at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas" be a better way to put it? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. But In the United States, a mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, kills 21 people. would stay closer to the original. It's your call. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, "In the United States" might be overkill, as it can be assumed that states like Texas, New York, and California are known worldwide.—Bagumba (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Some reference points on sources implictly excluding the gunman in death counts: The New York Times: "'We Have to Act,' Biden Says After 21 Killed at Texas Elementary School",[7] The Guardian: "Biden calls for action on gun laws after 21 killed – latest updates"[8]Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support as there's clearly a lot of coverage, and the coverage is worldwide for this. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting weak, cynical, irrelevant Comment (sorry, that really was a dreadful "Posted" comment, when a lot of the Supports are "Duh, obviously it should be posted"). There's a good point made by the IP above in terms of systemic bias, in that regardless of the routine-ness of US school shootings, we tend to not post deadly events that are common in other countries. Black Kite (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    120 guns for every 100 people? Surprised we don't get one a week. Maybe these will be moved to Ongoing before too long. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Good morning, rest of the world. What do you all think of this? --WaltCip-(talk) 11:15, 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]
  • Support, A mass shooting in an elementary school with a high number of death is a notable news. Alex-h (talk) 11:57, 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]

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 railwaySmurrayinchester 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]
  • Because architecture and engineering are not significant when compared to important matters like the Eurovision song contest, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 19:59, 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 [9]. 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.[10] 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]
  • Support The conclusion of a large infrastructure project in a major city, for which there's precedent for posting. Interesting story with adequate RS coverage and article quality. Davey2116 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I have reached the same conclusion as Davey2116. -- Tavix (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This appears to be U.S. based news, not global news. [email protected] (he/him) 23:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, I'm pretty sure this is Canadian news. London, Ontario. Steelkamp (talk) 04:29, 25 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]

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]

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]

  • This wikibio is long enough to qualify (340 words). There are no concerns regarding its formatting Footnotes can be found where they are expected. All non-English sources are AGF'd. And Earwig didn't find any problems. It's READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RDfilelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:02, 26 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]

  • Support. I can't directly read the Indonesian news articles cited, but between Google Translate and WP:AGF, I am reasonably assured that the article is complete and accurately conveys the recent death of the subject. BD2412 T 03:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:54, 28 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]

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]

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]
  • WP:ITN/R is a guideline and so is weaker than the policy WP:NOTNEWS which therefore trumps it. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ITNR has been shaped and molded by consensus. Again, Wikipedia is governed by consensus, not lone users' opinions. If you don't have a constructive reason to !vote besides personal arguments on significance and policy, I ask that you take your time somewhere else. If you have a problem with the ITNR page's consensus, open a discussion on the ITNR talk page, but for now we'll continue to operate as we always have. The Kip (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew Davidson, where would you say the behavioral guideline WP:POINT fits in with all of this? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 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]

  • Support altblurb ITNR recurring event, albeit I feel my altblurb is better-worded. Details regarding the circumstances of the win are better-suited for the article. The Kip (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a cn tag, and there doesn't seem to be anything citing the stadium and location section. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's all in the PL handbook, I added a cite to the top of the table. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose tables upon tables upon tables, all prose in the lead and none in the body. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 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]
  • Support, summary is a bit slanted towards the end of the season, but it definitely no longer applies that the article is just tables. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and I favour the altblurb - keep it simple. If blurb1 is posted at least replace the emdash with an endash. Neutral on the relevance of the pic of Kevin the Brain. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I know the ginger stinger is (probably) the best player in the world, but I'm not sure even he can take most of the blurb credit. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - there seems to be sufficient prose. The suggestion that we cant have a photo of a footballer if he's wearing a sponsored shirt is utterly bizarre - as noted that would mean we basically couldn't have any photos of footballers actually playing football any more recently than about 1982...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cooper Kupp.jpg
  • Support Sufficient prose.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this article has enough information for this ITN. Alex-h (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative blurb - notable event. GiantSnowman 18:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article now meets quality standards, and this is ITN/R. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why has the map showing team locations been made so small compared to last year (2020–21 Premier League#Stadiums and locations) and previous years? Harder to see. Nfitz (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite sure why. I've increased to the same size as last year. The Kip (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a photo of a soccer match in the article would be nice - but nothing is jumping out at me on the Commons. Article is significantly improved with prose. Nfitz (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's tricky to get "a photo of a soccer match". And it would be difficult to decide which match and which moment. Maybe someone's got one of the pitch invasion that happened afterwards! I still suggest that a picture of the team, perhaps during the city victory parade, would be best (but yes Commons addition seems unlikely). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone with accredited access are contractually bound in such a way they almost certainly can't release the photo on a free licence. Anyone not accreditated taking a photo from the spectator stand is technically in breach of the terms and conditions of the tickets/ground. -- KTC (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Someone standing in the streets of Manchester as the bus drove past, or who was at the final venue, was free to take as many photos as they liked. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 24 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]
  • Support per Andrew Davidson, a comprehensive article which even covers sponsorship deals, which are a fundamental aspect of modern sports. Thanks! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, no brainer, one of the biggest sporting events of the year definitely deserves a mention.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now a few citations still needed, and I think some prose summary for what happened in the season prior to the final day, the twists and turns, just a paragraph or two should do it.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Notable event, and article is ready. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and marked Ready. No citations needed, prose is enough. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted -- KTC (talk) 21:14, 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]

  • Support This infant shortage is gaining global coverage plus its rare for this to happen to one of the richest countries in the world. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per TDKR Chicago. Also some interesting angles around regulation, de-regulation and corporate consolidation. The article is also in good shape and a welcome change from the cookie-cutter disaster stubs we frequently post. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposing for the third time, and preparing for a fourth. For the same reasons that I stated few days ago. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    friendly reminder: international coverage ≠ notability _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:23, 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]
  • Oppose Still waiting on that starvation/innovation angle I couldn't see this flying without the first time it came back. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:22, 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]

References[edit]

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

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