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.

Anthony Albanese in 2022
Anthony Albanese

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 24[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime


Elizabeth line[edit]

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]
  • 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]

May 23[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime


May 22[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Sports


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]

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 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]

May 21[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


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: Colin Cantwell[edit]

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

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

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

  • Support Solidly sourced and article quality is good enough. Could have some references work, per nom. MarioJump83! 07:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple of {cn} tags in the Personal Life section that need to be addressed. --PFHLai (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Achmad Yurianto[edit]

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

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

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

  • Weak support Article is fine. Nothing less, nothing more. Could use some work as per nom. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well known within my country, especially during the first months of the pandemic in Indonesia. Still needs some copyediting per nom. MarioJump83! 07:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Australia election[edit]

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

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

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

  • Wait until we know whether Labor will win a majority. BilledMammal (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does it matter whether Labor gets a majority or minority government? It is clear that Labor will form government anyway. The blurb can be amended later when we know whether Labor got a majority or not. Steelkamp (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until we are 100 percent sure that the Labor party wins a majority. Additional prose in the 'Results' section would also be helpful. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does it matter whether Labor gets a majority or minority government? It is clear that Labor will form government anyway. The blurb can be amended later when we know whether Labor got a majority or not. Steelkamp (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Vote counting in the close seats will take several days, and possibly weeks. It's possible, maybe even likely, that it would be considered by some editors to be a 'stale' story in early/mid/late June once the final seat count is known. It would be best to post the item now, while it is actually in the news. Chrisclear (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the significance is that the election happened, not what its result is. Levivich 15:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support important election 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality as orange tagged section in target article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joseph2302: Fixed sourcing issues TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality In addition to the orange tag, I have seen many an election article before but never one where the "Results" section is ahead of the "Background" section. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Muboshgu: Fixed sourcing issues TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with picture of Albanese This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - current PM has conceded, and Labour is leading or elected in 79 of the 151 seats. No reason to wait, other than quality. Nfitz (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - Albo is expected to be sworn in on Monday 23rd of May. I say we just wait until he's sworn in, and change the blurb appropriately. Melmann 22:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Melmann We don't typically wait for the formal swearing in/inauguration. It's the election that is news, not the formalities. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until Albo is sworn in, and strong support for it added on the main page thereafter.Resnjari (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This position is in violation of WP:ITN/R, and so should be ignored. Steelkamp (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait We still don't have final totals. Bit of a premature nom. The Kip (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Until we figure out if its a majority or minority, though we don't need to wait for him to be sworn in. Ornithoptera (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, Morrison has conceded defeat [1]. --Masem (t) 05:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - against ridiculous, wilfully ignorant opposition! Counting in Australian elections and knowing the precise number of seats can take weeks or months. But the former Prime Minister has conceded the election. The major media outlets have declared the result. (Even Rupert Murdoch's Sky News!) THERE IS NO DOUBT!!!!! 05:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait The Australian Electoral Commission haven't even declared any seats yet, with postal votes and pre-poll votes yet to be counted there is still plenty of room for movement. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The former PM has conceded the election to the Labor Party. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They don't declare seats until all the postals are in, and we have never waited for 'dead rubbers' to be finalised Bumbubookworm (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So we should wait until June to put this on ITN? Albo would have been sworn in long before that. Steelkamp (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until May 23, the swearing in comes close enough on the heels of the election that we can bundle the results and their formalization into a single post. BD2412 T 05:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The former PM has conceded the election to the Labor Party. We won't have formal results for probably a month. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This position is in violation of WP:ITN/R, and so should be ignored. Steelkamp (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Morrison has already resigned as leader of the Liberal Party; Albanese has already declared victory. Yes, there is still uncertainty around whether Labor will govern with a majority or minority government HOWEVER it is almost certain that Labor will form government. I don't recall Wikipedia ITN ever waiting for every seat to be decided, let alone wait for the formal swearing-in. JMonkey2006 (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The target article is the federal election for this blurb, so waiting for 23 May does not make sense. Morrison also conceded and I believe when Biden was elected a blurb was posted when he was declared victor not on his inauguration on 20 January. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending quality ALP has won, we have never waited for all subdivisions to be confirmed if the fact that a victory has occurred is known Bumbubookworm (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bumbubookworm: Fixed sourcing issues. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: All of the people saying we should wait to see whether it is a majority or minority/wait for when Albo is sworn should be ignored, as the actual election is on WP:ITN/R, not the swearing in. Steelkamp (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed 100%. The target article is the 2022 federal election not Albo, so waiting until 23 May makes no sense. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I love all these "Albos" Bumbubookworm (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed, postal votes will be accepted until Friday 3 June, so the final seat count won't be known for quite some time. Chrisclear (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not advocate for ignoring the voices of our contributors. We are a community ruled by consensus. ITN/R is not the law, it is a guideline. Election blurbs are routinely held for greater clarity, and suggestions for a negligible delay to improve the blurb are valid. I disagree, and Support posting now, but your efforts here are uncivil. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tweak and post replace "a majority of seats in", which is likely by uncertain and won't be confirmed for several days, with "the" which is uncontroversial given the ALP is going to be sworn into government tomorrow (23 May) Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted (with "the" instead of "a", which can be changed if/when they win a 76th seat). Black Kite (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted too soon I believe this is the first election to be included in Main Page in which the results section has no prose... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What content/information are you expecting to read, that is not covered by the tables in the results section? Chrisclear (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In each of the elections that have been proposed for inclusion in MP, the results section has been required to have a minimum of prose, as a matter of article quality. The Australian ones should be no exception. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your reply. Can you advise who (apart from you) has imposed this requirement "to have a minimum of prose"? And I will ask again, what content/information are you expecting to read, that is not covered by the tables in the results section? Chrisclear (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any articles that are featured or target links (those in bolded text for the most part) on the Main Page (including TFA and DYK) are expected to represent the best of what WP articles can be. Articles consisting only of tables does not meet that quality baseline. --Masem (t) 15:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can do the exercise yourself, by taking a look at the nominations on elections from, at least, last month. And you will see that I'm not the only one who demands it. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully those demands will subside. Repeating information in prose when it's already in a table doesn't strike me as increasing article quality. Levivich 15:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing the table details for the highlights is both more appropriate to an encyclopedic format as well as improving accessibility. There is also sometimes details that prose can cover that tables cannot necessary show. --Masem (t) 15:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's what the lead does: provide a prose summary. The Results section doesn't need to repeat that with another prose summary. It goes back to the question, "what content/information are you expecting to read, that is not covered by the tables in the results section?" (Or in the lead, I would add.) I'd say it's all covered in the tables and summarized in the lead. The lack of prose in the Results section is not a reason not to post an article on ITN. Levivich 15:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lede should be summarizing the body of the article, so if there's no prose in the body, that's a problem. I mean, this is why we want LEDECITE for, for the body to be where references are located and keeping the lede clean of citations outside of direct quotes. Also, keep in mind people may jump directly to that section, and thus why even a short summary of the table itself should be present. --Masem (t) 16:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just threw in two sentences of minimal prose above the table of results. Please feel free to update and expand it. --PFHLai (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I think the wording should be changed from "majority" to the slightly less specific "most" because it's clear Labor have won, but not necessarily a majority, which has more implications. The official Electoral Commission updates currently suggest 75 of 151 (1 away from a majority). — Bacon Noodles (talkcontribsuploads) 18:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree with this. It’s not currently known whether it’s a majority. Steelkamp (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definitely a majority, the question is only whether it's a relative majority or absolute majority (and no, not "plurality", because this is Australia, not USA/Canada). Regards SoWhy 18:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, no-one ever says the words "relative majority" when talking about Australian elections. Whenever someone says "majority", they are referring to an absolute majority. Steelkamp (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "The majority" was correct. It is not equivalent to "a majority". "The majority" means "the most", not a plurality. Still, I see someone's changed it now - whatever. Black Kite (talk)
  • Update For those who thought swearing in was a significant moment in time, that has now happened. It was a stupid requirement anyway. I cannot imagine us ever delaying the posting of the election of a new US President from November to January. HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That last part really sounds like some silly America-centric remark. The point is that this isn't the US and that the delay between the election and the swearing-in is so much shorter that waiting the extra few hours (which might have allowed for some more suitable prose to be written for the results section, prose which is still lacking) wouldn't have been a bad idea... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For every country, we post when the results are reported, not when the person is inaugurated, which often takes a few days or a week (and much longer for US). If someone wants to change that, they should discuss it at WT:ITN, because it would be a change to the usual process of posting these elections. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that "which often takes a few days or a week" is clearly not the case with Australia - in fact, the guy was sworn in before we even had the full results, which just shows how the comparison with other countries is in this case inaccurate; and how following process for the sake of process is not particularly a good way to do things. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, Albanese was not sworn in as the next Prime Minister as the result of the election. He was sworn in as an interim Prime Minister until such time as the election result is finalised and the true winner is known (it will almost certainly be Albanese, but it is not yet certain that he will be able to form government). This was an exceptional case, because of the Quad Summit in Tokyo beginning on Tuesday. Outgoing PM Scott Morrison (who is still PM until a new PM is sworn in) could not attend meaningfully as by convention as the outgoing PM he would be unable to commit Australia to any decisions, so he resigned after the election trends became apparent, forcing the Governor-General to appoint an interim PM until such time as the election is finalised. This is all a technicality, but speaking in technical terms, Albanese has not been sworn in as "the new PM who won the election", he is currently only an interim PM. dmmaus (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The ABC says nothing about it being interim.[2] It says it was done quickly because of the Tokyo summit, but also that the Governor-General was convinced Labor was able to form government. Adpete (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One could also take it as an anti-US special treatment comment. Anyhoo, AGF.—Bagumba (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    HiLo is prone to bemoaning putative U.S.-centricity on ITN/C. I wouldn't worry about it too much. WaltCip-(talk) 14:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I love you too. It's probably worth pointing out that, for most informed Australians, the result of an election are accepted as clear when Antony Green says they are. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs to update to something indicating Labor has won the election, like, "... and Anthony Albanese becomes Prime Minister of Australia". "Wins the most seats" is too technical and should be removed if there is not enough space; the party winning the most seats does not always form government. Adpete (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeypox[edit]

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

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

  • Wait 88 cases so far and 0 deaths. Wait until the outbreak is more consequential, then I feel like it could be posted in ITN Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing seems inevitable. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Good faith nom but... really? If this was smallpox I'd be a bit more concerned. This is premature. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Thanks for the reassurance, A. We've got drugs. We're not scared! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Under 100 cases worldwide and with a rather low transmission rate is not a need to rush to post anything, but that doesn't rule out a future psoting if it gets worse. --Masem (t) 03:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given just the news over the last few days, I would support simply adding this to Ongoing without a blurb. Eg Biden spoke to it this morning saying everyone should be aware of this as it has a possibility of being more severe if people are too lax. Or at the least, making sure we fast track to Ongoing if this still is getting worse in the next month or so. --Masem (t) 14:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per Ad Orientum and Masem. Jusdafax (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment weird, this update suggests more than a thousand cases and 58 deaths worldwide. Lethality of 4.5% is way above COVID. Perhaps we need to just update the facts. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above, this is already serious and is killing dozens of people. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's counting the places where it killing dozens is already normal. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh? So people in DRC don't count. I see. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew you'd go there, and was edit conflicted clarifying. Of course they count. But endemics aren't the news here, the spread to the "first world" is. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ongoing The geographical spread beyond Africa and worldwide news coverage are quite significant for ongoing at least. Brandmeistertalk 08:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per The Rambling Man’s reasoning above. This is already a serious thing in some countries, and absolutely nothing indicates that the news is about its spread to the “first world”.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The blurb you're supporting is based on the BBC saying Infections have been confirmed in nine European countries, as well as the US, Canada and Australia. The Al Jazeera/AP piece is all about how different it is in "the West""developed countries". The target article only counts non-African cases, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We’re probably going to post a blurb that it has spread to a number of countries without specifying where those countries are located, so readers won’t immediately get that the story documents something affecting the “first world”. At the end, it’s completely irrelevant if the countries are in Europe, Africa or South America. The news is that a viral disease becomes more prevalent.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You can disguise the blurb all you want, but unless you rewrite the underlying article, readers will notice it seems to care more about a few dozen recent Westerners than hundreds of thousands of Africans over the decades eventually. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Banedon (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. However, wait on ongoing. BilledMammal (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom HurricaneEdgar 12:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nom.BabbaQ (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Orientum, Masem – An ugly development that bears watching, but it seems premature at this pt. – Sca (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per above. In my opinion, systematic bias seems strong here, as I am fairly sure that a similar endemic happened in the United States would get unanimous support. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Shootings in the US do not get unanimous support. The baby formula shortage in the US did not get unanimous support. Levivich 15:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this is happening in the United States. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now - premature. WHO has not declared a PHE, and as far as I can find out nobody has died in the European outbreak. Also, the article does not mention anything about the disease in Africa which I assume has far more impact. Juxlos (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Premature, and I'm pretty sure that as the "outbreak" is in Europe, systemic bias does not apply. Black Kite (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the spread of this rare disease outside of remote parts of Africa is significant as evidenced by it being front-page news worldwide. The article is of sufficient quality. Levivich 15:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - front page of a newspaper doesn't make it notable. This isn't a unique occurrence. Monkeypox outbreaks have been happening in the west for decades - we even have an article about the 2003 outbreak in the USA - where there were 0 deaths in 71 confirmed cases. Nfitz (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a bit of an exaggeration. The one you linked to was the only outbreak in the West and all of those cases were the result of animal-to-human transmission. Not at all comparable to the current outbreak. Johndavies837 (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The WHO held an emergency meeting and I believe this is the first case of monkeypox spreading from country to country. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not yet a significant enough outbreak. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose. We have become oversensitized to the possibility of another pandemic, but a touch-transmitted disease like monkeypox will not be it. BD2412 T 05:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What about 2022 hepatitis of unknown origin in children? - EugεnS¡m¡on 07:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Without a cause, that's more of a pattern people just happen to notice than an outbreak/epidemic/spread, so something to think about but not a suitable substitute. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike the monkeypox outbreak, it doesn't seem that outbreak became as big of a concern as this one, and most of the attention now is at monkeypox outbreak we're currently in. MarioJump83! 08:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Until/if WHO declares the outbreak to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern Scaramouche33 (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support – Cases reported in 14 15 countries, including newly reported Israel and Switzerland. But risk termed "extremely low." – Sca (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per Scaramouche33. This currently seems to be the worst kind of unnecessary tabloid scare-mongering (and, since the victims seem to be disproportionately gay men, it probably carries a real risk of leading to outbreaks of gay-bashing as well, a risk that can only be increased by a decision by us to give it unjustified publicity, and publicity that often stays on our front page long after it has left the front pages of other media). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ~200 cases in 12 countries in 23 days? No, not at all noteworthy. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean it really only started to gain traction from last Wednesday, before May 18th it was only a few isolated cases in the UK. The suggested blurb is outdated now anyway since we are up to 16 countries (possibly 17 if the Argentinian case is confirmed). And if it is, that would mean the virus has spread to every continent (except Antartica) which is significant. 4iamking (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, until the outbreak becomes a significant enough concern – This outbreak is significant enough that it got some international attention, but this is quite premature as most of them aren't really concerned yet. Honestly, I'm afraid that this outbreak might spread into my country, but unless this outbreak's trajectory keeps going up and becoming a significant health risk worldwide that it becomes a real concern, then it is not enough for a blurb. Also a concern to note, per Tlhslobus, is the scaremongering from tabloids while most of the outbreak victims are disproportionately gay men. It could become a dangerous and undeserved publicity that should be avoided. MarioJump83! 08:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose right now there's a small number of cases of monkeypox in a small number of countries. Most of the coverage of this is just fearmongering, and we shouldn't be doing that too. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - We're nowhere near the point where this would warrant an ongoing posting. Possibly if the casualty toll significantly increases.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – FWIW, WHO says monkeypox spread was caused by 'raves' in Spain and Belgium, and terms it a "formidable" challenge. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In a more recent report, WHO said it was "containable" and overall risk to the broader population is very low. That article also says Despite being the largest outbreak outside of Africa in 50 years, monkeypox does not spread easily between people and experts say the threat is not comparable to the coronavirus pandemic. That the event is getting as much news coverage in the West seems to be more about post-Covid anxiety than any real risk. Nfitz (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is in good shape, reliable news sources have provided adequate coverage to establish significance. --Jayron32 12:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose,The outbreak is not significant. Alex-h (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is not for us to determine if this is fearmongering. Reliable sources are reporting it, it appears to be a big deal. Will it be the next COVID-19? Probably not, but this is notable enough to post on ITN. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 22:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – getting disproportionate reporting in media in a post-COVID world, borderline tabloid levels of being overblown. Hardly a notable outbreak as of now. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, global media attention on this spread makes it inevitable and pertinent.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: maybe it was premature at the time of nomination, but it seems significant enough now. It doesn't need to be as bad and widespread as COVID-19 to be included in ITN. MarioGom (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Mario's right, it only has to be worse and more widespread than the Eurovision Song Contest. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't judge ITN worthiness based on what's already posted there. The Eurovision Song Contest is WP:ITNR, so definitely notable for being posted. Monkeypox coverage is still a lot of scaremongering over a few cases, and we shouldn't be supporting that by copying it. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise, we don't judge a lot of coverage by whether some readers might find it scarier than it has some unwritten right to be. You think massacre, protest and natural disaster stories don't intentionally turn it up for clicks? Fear is news. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 94 cases confirmed in the world. That's not important enough for ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is on the basis that it has not become a worldwide pandemic as say COVID-19. Kampolama (talk) 07:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does it have to be a once-in-lifetime pandemic to make ITN? Sheesh, these COVID comparisons are ridic. Levivich 14:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • This has 94 cases in the whole world, less than most other diseases in the world.... It doesn't have to be COVID-levels of coverage, but it's nothing compared to other diseases right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • And yet our readers are reading about it, more than any other article yesterday. How many days has this been in the news? Why is Eurovision still listed a week later when we have more recent items, of more interest to readers, to post? What part of ITN criteria involves editors deciding how many cases a disease needs to have before it's posted on ITN? All of these questions are rhetorical. Levivich 14:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This was the top read article yesterday and has had over a million readers lately. That's obviously because it's very much in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Outbreak is spreading and continues to make front page news. Beyond notable even if it isn't on the same scope as COVID. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 15:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Vaccines are already available for monkeypox[3].--WaltCip-(talk) 15:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starliner docks to ISS[edit]

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

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

  • Oppose Similar to other superlative events, we usually don't post the second or beyond-type events. While this is Boeing's first attempt (compared to SpaceX), it really isn't much of a new accomplishment. --Masem (t) 14:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Might be a big deal for Boeing, but otherwise a footnote to the ISS story. – Sca (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Currently only two spacecraft are able to deliver crew to the ISS; Soyuz and Dragon. The success of this flight changes this, reducing the reliance on Russia and the market dominance of SpaceX; this makes it a significant event that should be posted on ITN. BilledMammal (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sca. This isn't receiving the sort of international, front-page coverage that would indicate sufficient significance to post at ITN. Levivich 15:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm interested as I'd not heard of this vehicle before. But the nomination describes it as "crewed" and it wasn't. This was just one in a series of test flights and doesn't seem a major milestone. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was looking at what we've done in the past for new crewed spacecraft. For Crew Dragon, the comparable 2019 test flight to the ISS wasn't in the news - but the first crewed flight (Crew Dragon Demo-2 in 2020), was in the news. On the other hand, NASA's new Orion (spacecraft) isn't due to have it's first crewed flight (Artemis 2) until 2024 - but it's already been ITN at least twice, with the 2009 launch of an uncrewed Orion prototype in the Ares I-X sub-orbital test flight, an also in the 2014 orbital Exploration Flight Test-1. I'd also be shocked if the planned August 2022 uncrewed test flight of Artemis 1 doesn't make ITN - thought given that it's an uncrewed capsule going into lunar orbit for the first time since Apollo 6 in 1968, and the first launch of NASA's massive Space Launch System. Given the failure of the 2019 Starliner Boeing Orbital Flight Test, it's a huge milestone for NASA and Boeing. But is it ITN? Nfitz (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was neutral above, because I couldn't see an ITN item for an uncrewed Dragon. However I just came across an 2012 ITNs for both the first Cargo Dragon flight to the ISS and SpaceX CRS-1. One could argue that the first uncrewed test of the Crewed version wasn't notable because by then they'd flown the Cargo version over 20 times - unlike Boeing that have never tried to dock anything to ISS before. Not surprisingly there was also an ITN for the 2015 SpaceX CRS-7 explosion. Inconsistently there was no ITN for the first flights of Cygnus (until the massive explosion in 2014) or ATV-001 in 2008, but there was one for HTV-1 in 2014. Nfitz (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Nfitz Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Nfitz, who makes a thoughtful case, and Billed Mammal. Jusdafax (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The fourth crewed spacecraft to dock on the ISS doesn’t convince me at all. This may be a huge milestone for Boeing and an important event for NASA, but it’s definitely not groundbreaking in the history of space technology.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think @Kiril Simeonovski:, that it's the fourth type of crewed spacecraft to dock, that is the point. It's that it's the first docking of this type; mind you, given the other 3 types first flew in 1967, 1981, and 2019 - it's not like the category is flooded! Technically, this flight meets WP:ITNR#Space exploration of The launch of space stations or installation of new major components thereof. At the same time, the first crewed flight might be a better target. I am surprised the previous Boeing Orbital Flight Test wasn't posted, as it met the ITNR of Launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article - although no one brought that up WP:In the news/Candidates/December 2019#Boeing Orbital Flight Test. Nfitz (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: You're welcome to tweak the blurb so that it documents what the first docking of its type really means.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the blurb - I think it's the nominator's comment that bends that way, @Kiril Simeonovski:. Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned that "it's the first docking of this type", but that's nowhere clearly explained.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kiril Simeonovski; I would perhaps support an ITN for Boeing-CFT, when it actually flies crew, as it then signifies that Boeing is ready to fulfill its commercial contract with NASA. Even then, it's not that big of news; the main story is with America achieving the independent ability to launch astronauts, which it already has before Starliner flew successfully. Lyrim (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 20[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Aroha Reriti-Crofts[edit]

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

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

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

(Posted) RD: Roger Angell[edit]

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

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

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

  • Support American baseball writer, dead at 101. Short story and solidly sourced. Maybe Photo RD? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per InedibleHulk. Good job on the cleanup. Jusdafax (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Susan Roces[edit]

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

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

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

  • Support Article has reliable sources. Vida0007 (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC) Wait as per InedibleHulk's comment below; minor changes should be done, especially with her filmography. Vida0007 (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Filmography hasn't reliable sources and hardly enough corroborating Wikilinks. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the lack of sources in the Filmography section, the orange tag asking for an expansion in the Career section needs to be addressed, too, before this nom can proceed. --PFHLai (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 19[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

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

RD: Sam Smith (basketball, born 1944)[edit]

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

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

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

  • This wikibio is READY for RD. It's more than long enough to qualify (700+ words), and there are no concerns regarding its formatting and deployment of footnotes. And Earwig has found no problems. --PFHLai (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Donald K. Ross (author)[edit]

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

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

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

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

(Attention needed) Sri Lanka Debt Default[edit]

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

Article needs updating

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

  • Article needs updating to explain this is after an initial 30 day grave period that started in April to try to pay off debt before becoming fully in fault. Articke as stands puts the default in April and appears yo make this stale. But the event is going past that 30 day window. --Masem (t) 14:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, support in principle. Major event, but article needs updating. The Kip (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nom guy007 (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2022 Sri Lankan political crisis should be added in ongoing issues. Thanks. IAmAtHome (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Unusual but pretty notable news with major implications for the country, its creditors and trade partners.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 18:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A rare event and I believe Sri Lanka is now the first Asian-Pacific country to do this so there's a blurbworthy event (perhaps worth a mention?) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This should be added to ongoing issues as this has been going on for quite a while. Didn't Sri Lanka default on some debt in April as well? https:ndtv.com/world-news/sri-lanka-announces-defaulting-on-all-its-external-debt-news-agency-afp-2880723 https:independent.co.uk/asia/south-asia/sri-lanka-default-external-debts-b2056248.html Haris920 (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    April default was called soft default (the debtor announces their intention of defaulting prior to the due date) and received a 30 day grace period. Now the grace period expired the country is hard defaulting. Chanaka L (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and this aspect still needs to be added to the article to explain why this is not the same thing as the prior April announcement. --Masem (t) 04:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, makes sense Haris920 (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword Focussing only on the debt seems too narrow and mercenary. The target article is about their economic crisis and there seem to be several aspects to this, not just the debt issue. For example, their agriculture has collapsed because of a government ban on agrichemicals, forcing farmers to become organic. The production of rice and tea is down dramatically and this is one reason for the crisis. So, we should say something of this rather than suggesting that all we care about is getting paid. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Be it a financial crisis or an election we don't like, you can't fit all the context into the blurb -- that's what the article is for. If the default is in the news, that ought be in the blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The target article is called "Sri Lankan economic crisis" not "Sri Lankan debt default". If it seems like there's too much happening to fit into a blurb then maybe we should put it into Ongoing. That way, we've got the protests, political changes and other consequences covered too. Others have made similar points above too. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb – It's a complex developing situation. On Fri. govt. (per AP) closed schools & cut back ops. But neutral re Ongoing. -- Sca (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added altblurb2 to reflect this. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As ongoing. The Alt2 version is too long, as has been mentioned, there is that whole chain of events that basically can be summed up as criminal mismanagement. The default is only a cherry on top of the cake. We'll see unrest for quite some time, so it's better for the people to know about the whole shit happening there. But there's that maintenance tag that would best go before posting. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still need to point out the article is not properly updated to explain the more recent defaulting after the 30-day soft period. This needs to be clear before we can post. --Masem (t) 16:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Put forward slightly re-worded 4th altblurb. The Kip (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 18[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

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

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

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

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Cathal Coughlan[edit]

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

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

Nominator's comments: Irish singer and songwriter, frontman of the band MicrodisneyMartinevans123 (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, I trust that you'll find a ref for the bands others formed, which isn't even necessary for his bio. Just for formality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Thomas Resetarits[edit]

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

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

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

(Posted) RD: Bob Neuwirth[edit]

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

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

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

  • Support Meets minimum standards for depth; referenced. SpencerT•C 05:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Is the article long enough? Green tickY Is it cited? Green tickY Is it issue free? Green tickY This article is READY for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jim Murphy (author)[edit]

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

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

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

  • This wikibio is READY for RD. It's long enough to qualify (650+ words), with no glaring gaps in coverage, no concerns with formatting and deployment of footnotes. And Earwig found nothing wrong. --PFHLai (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 03:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Mpho Moerane[edit]

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

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

Nominator's comments: A short wikiarticle on a former mayor of Johannesburg with a short tenure. --PFHLai (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Support Article is fine. Still could use a DOB, if anyone can find it. Article is barely long enough but has reasonable sources for an article this size. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Found something which works for that (by my understanding of WP:CALC). Thankfully it just barely sneaks in before the paywall hits, ha. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 20:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Finland and Sweden apply to join NATO[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: Enlargement of NATO (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Finland and Sweden apply to join NATO. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Finland and Sweden renounce neutrality and apply to join NATO.
Alternative blurb II: Finland and Sweden renounce neutrality and apply to join NATO, due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Alternative blurb III: ​In a major change to their foreign policies, Finland and Sweden apply to join NATO.
News source(s): CNN AP
Credits:
Nominator's comments: This is no longer hypothetical, they have now actually applied. Sweden is abandoning 200 years of neutrality. This is not WP:CRYSTAL as the story is that they have applied. It would also be newsworthy if they are accepted or rejected. --> 331dot (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sweden's end of its 200-year neutrality has some merit, albeit violated two months ago when they agreed to send military support to Ukraine, but this is just a process of applying and not joining NATO. Let's wait until they officially become members and post it then as we did with other countries in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We had a nom for that which snow closed. And we will have many that say at the point of joining that it's old news. Most of us think this thing is worth posting but only question when. I think we should have a discussion about that preference over on the talk page, rather than having different editors shoot down each stage. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The main problem here is that "applying" doesn't mean "joining", and that's the reason why we post at the moment of joining. In this particular case, the risk is that Turkey may veto their applications because Finland and Sweden allegedly support the Kurdish military groups (Reuters).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree completely that it is too early to post now. My only question is which specific step is the best place to post. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Wait This is the third time this has been nominated in as many days, and the story hasn't significantly changed since it was closed the prior two times. When NATO accepts the new members, we have a meaningful story. Applying for entry is not a sufficient landmark here. Can we please read the already declined nominations and stop trying to beat this dead horse. Let's wait until they are actually accepted as new NATO members. --Jayron32 12:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At which point the argument will be "old news! They applied months ago!". 331dot (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I did read the prior nominations, thanks. As I note above, this is no longer hypothetical, or a mere announcement of intent. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first was closed withToo early to tell, we should revisit this when they actually send it in, IF they send it in. and the second was closed withThere is clear SNOW consensus that the intent to join is not going to be the point of coverage. Whether we post when they fully apply and/or when NATO approves is a different matter, but this is clearly not going to be posted from the numerous waits.
    Reading the declined nominations supports opening a new one now, and the story has significantly changed since then - Sweden and Finland have sent in their formal applications. BilledMammal (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Wait It should only be when NATO has accepted their membership, though I do agree these countries finally taking sides is of interest, but that arguably is all under the Russia-Ukraine ongoing. As Turkey has expressed oppossion so far, we should wait until the NATO acceptance is done. --Masem (t) 12:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If as being claimed that the story is Finland and Sweden "abandoning" neutrality, that's a side effect of the Ukraine-Russia war, and thus should already be covered by that ongoing. Both countries have already taken a side (with Ukraine) in some type of capacity, so their neutrality was already abandoned. --Masem (t) 20:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until if/when they actually get accepted, as that would be the ITN worthy event. Applying to something isn't notable enough for ITN< especially when Turkey have implied they'll veto the applications. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, because as of now this is still WP:CRYSTAL. Even if they apply, it doesn't really change the state of geopolitics that much until they get accepted, if they get accepted. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fakescientist8000 This is not crystal because the story here is that they applied. Nothing more, nothing less than that. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question If we don't post now, then we should determine what we will post, because there's guaranteed to be separate nominations for the Accession Protocol, for the last NATO member ratifying, for the treaty coming into force...Scaramouche33 (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a significant geopolitical change, marking Finland and Sweden abandoning neutrality - even Turkey vetoing their application will not change this. BilledMammal (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to this, I also support the original blurb per 4iamking. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per BilledMammal. The newsworthy event is the decision to abandon a decade-long/centuries-long stance of pact-neutrality in favor of applying to join NATO. This alone has let to a lot of news coverage all over the world, with my sources explicitly highlighting the historicity of the application itself e.g.
Whether or not the application is accepted, is irrelevant. Those who argue to wait or see a CRYSTAL violation fail to take into account that it would only be a CRYSTAL violation if the blurb was "Sweden and Finland will join NATO". No one is proposing this though. Even if Turkey were ultimately successful in blocking their membership, the decision to apply itself will still have been newsworthy. There is no rule that an application and an acceptance can't both be newsworthy if they are about different things. Regards SoWhy 13:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I am in agreement with SoWhy that the most newsworthy aspect is the application to join NATO. -- Tavix (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm convinced. Even the intention to do so greatly changes the geopolitical landscape in Europe. Neutrality as a principle is beginning to fade from existence.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Still premature. It remains to be seen whether Turkey will play the shill for Putinia. And Hungary lurks (surprise!) as a possible foil. Applying changes nothing. There's many a slip. Realistically, membership may happen later this year. – Sca (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support thanks to SoWhy, and also as there are myriad other milestones that can be used, debated, and posted/rejected. Neutrality in Scandinavia is over, and Russia/Turkey's reactions are noteworthy enough. As pointed out by Scaramouche33, for those who don't want to post this event, what do we post instead? 66.209.246.6 (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Something newsworthy. -- Sca (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For not being newsworthy, this sure is in a lot of news outlets. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they can't just re-run yesterday's nooz, that would be to much of a snooze. But in this case it's not news anyone can use. -- Sca (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly seems to be of concern to Russia's apparatchiki, as they keep threatening nuclear war to Sweden and Finland for daring to consider joining. WaltCip-(talk) 15:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hot air. -- Sca (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what people thought about Russia's threats to invade Ukraine as well. How wrong we were. WaltCip-(talk) 17:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    stop it, you're making me snooz..... zzzzz Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No, ending neutrality is NOT worthy because it's arbitrary and subjective. No, let's wait until they are accepted. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain how ending 200 years of neutrality is "arbitrary and subjective". It's not arbitrary, both nations have specific reasons. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm talking about what constitutes neutrality. Almost all of these self-proclaimed "neutral" countries send military aid. Sweden is in the EU and they are sending military aid to Ukraine. So yeah, it's kinda debatable as to whether or not they are really neutral. What is not debatable is if they are or are not in NATO, which also promises to have a much bigger impact. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable sources consistently described them as neutral. Per WP:V and WP:OR, that means we need to consider them to be formerly neutral. BilledMammal (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then by that definition I don't think simply ending "neutrality" is ITN worthy. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support That the process is officially started and underway is underway is Newsworthy and worth a mention on ITN, we are past the stage of statements of intention that wouldnt be. 4iamking (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait. Too early to tell, there are (from SE's and FI's perspective) some rather annoying roadblocks (Turkey, Croatia, probably Hungary), and you know, we have the (related case) of Turkey applying to the EU in 1987 and not being in the EU in 2022, with the negotiations sort of started only in 2004 but then suspended after the attempt of a coup d'etat in 2016. We also have Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania in negotiations with the EU, and they've long applied for the status, but well, they aren't part of the EU, either. In any case, the application itself is not notable. The negotiations themselves aren't. But accession is. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      the news is that the application process is officially underway, not that they will be admitted (though those road blocks look extremely unlikely to actually block it). 4iamking (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to this, I support the original blurb. I don't like ALT 1 & 2 because if Sweden as an EU nation (and Article 47.2 Existing) was truly neutral before is up for debate, and I don't like Alt 2/3 because its unnecessarily leading. 4iamking (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Now is the time to post, when it's actually in the news. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this step is a pretty big deal in international relations. I agree with several commenters above that it's not WP:CRYSTAL to note the countries applied. While "Sweden and Finland join NATO" will also be worthy of ITN if/when it happens some time in the next year or so, I don't see how that negates this also being highly newsworthy.-- Patrick Neil, oѺ/Talk 17:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support the act of application alone is a huge deal, perhaps as big (if not more) than formal membership itself, especially as it has been said Article 5 won't immediately apply on date of joining and their application is basically guaranteed to be successful. Certainly newsworthy. And regardless of acceptance, I agree with SoWhy that applying is noteworthy in itself. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Prefer alt blurb. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I empathize with the wait crowd, but due to the Russia Derangement Syndrome this is "in the news" now, and their admittance is a forgone conclusion. Should it be posted now, it should not be posted again when formally admitted. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support IF it will preclude the next incremental steps from nomination. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I think the only other postable aspect here would be the last country to approve. I don't think the formal accession ceremony would merit posting or the date effective. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This should be posted one time. If the last approval is the milestone then wait. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it can be posted twice, once now that it's officially started, and once they actually get admitted. both are equally newsworthy events and there will be quite some time between them most likely. 4iamking (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I Oppose, based on my crystal ball showing the end result with more news and longer-lasting impact (and Oppose Alt due to neither country's arguable neutrality matching Switzerland's for historic geopolitical distinction, plus prior SNOW). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Alt II as explicitly covered by ongoing and Oppose Alt III for tooting its own horn. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Re Alt II, I can't see why our readers should be deprived of a more helpfully informative blurb simply because of the presence of 3 words in a different and largely unrelated part of the Main page. Tlhslobus (talk)
    It's seven words, including one duplicated link from the exact same box. The main reason is still the incompleteness of the story. Readers aren't deprived, anyway, just not forcefed. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In the news now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative tag. The story here is less that S+F are joining NATO per se. Rather, it is that they are abandoning long-held stances of political neutrality. Whether or not NATO actually takes them, this remains unchanged. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The story is that the application process is formally started and underway... In practical terms both countries really renounced neutrality in 1995 when they joined the EU. 4iamking (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a big fan of the verb "renounce" in that ALT option for a couple reasons. Namely, I agree, Finland and Sweden haven't exactly been "neutral" for some time, not when compared to a country like Switzerland, which prizes neutrality, or the nonaligned movement members. My proposal would be something like "In a major change to their foreign policies, Finland and Sweden apply to join NATO."-- Patrick Neil, oѺ/Talk 20:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mainly because EU has Article 42.7 (and to a lesser extent Article 222) that prevent member states from effectively staying Neutral. Switzerland doesn't have this restriction by not being in the EU, but It does get most of the benefits of EU membership. Switzerland and the European Microstates are the only countries in the single market that can be truly called neutral. 4iamking (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support major geopolitical change, especially for Sweden. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (preferably the alternative tag) — For all reasons mentioned above. Some editors have argued that their neutrality has already been technically broken when they decided to send military support to Ukraine (or even when they joined the EU); that is debatable (see Neutral country#Points of debate); what is not debatable is that asking to join a military alliance is clearly a historic breach of neutrality, which is the way that multiple news sources have chosen to report on this. Also, I should mention that there seems to be a contradiction between the argument that reporting this before they actually join is WP:CRYSTAL and the argument that Turkey seems bound to veto their entry... Rather, refusing to post this in anticipation of a likely Turkish veto sounds to me like that would be the WP:CRYSTAL-based decision here... LongLivePortugal (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As new alternative blurbs have been added I would like to clarify and explain my preferences about each of them (although I accept any in general): my strongest preference is Alternative Blurb 2, because it explains the reason for the application; my second preference is Alternative Blurb 1; then, it would be Alternative Blurb 3, which I don't like as much because it doesn't specify the change (and makes it seem like we have made an arbitrary decision as to what would constitute a 'major' change in foreign policy); finally, I think the original blurb is too dry, as it does not explain why their application is relevant. I do not agree with those opposing AltBlurbs 1 and 2 with the argument that Sweden and Finland may have already broken neutrality earlier — perhaps they have, that is a debatable issue; what is not debatable is that, right now, with this application they have now definitely broken neutrality (and that is how most sources seem to be reporting on it)! LongLivePortugal (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Support: It is the application that is the news, and which is the start of the period of greatest apparent danger, especially if the process gets prolonged (Ukraine seemingly eventually got invaded because it had applied years ago but was not quickly admitted). Arguably we should have posted it earlier (as soon as the countries officially stated their intention to apply) when it was even more newsworthy (and I feel rather embarrassed for Wikipedia in general, and ITN in particular, that we didn't, thus somehow deeming self-evidently-not-ITN-worthy a once in three quarters of a century profound change for Finland, and a once in two centuries profound change for Sweden), instead of repeatedly snow-closing before some of us had a chance to express our Support (thus somehow seemingly deeming the question not even worthy of discussion, though I'm not criticizing the snow-closers, who behaved reasonably given what had got posted at the time), but that's now water under the bridge, and in any case better late than never. Waiting until if and when the membership formally comes into effect (which may well include various obstructions and a possibly long ratification process in every NATO member Parliament) will merely compound the apparent mistakes that we have already made. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not posting speculative intents is not a 'mistake', just as we do not post election results until official announcements. Gotitbro (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "strongest possible support" = support. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added altblurb 2 because I think our blurb should tell our readers why it's happening (which is because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine). Obviously this is my preferred blurb, though I will happily support whatever blurb is needed to get the story posted. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - wait until they're officially a part of the organization 2600:1702:530:3240:ACBF:E71F:1F77:4496 (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Major foreign policy development given past non-aligned stances, and this will almost certainly be more “in the news” than when they formally ascend to NATO. The Kip (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per The Kip, both are breaking decades old neutrality stance amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is making global news and is an ITN blurb noteworthy no brainer. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Application for membership is the story/in the news. When they eventually get accepted/rejected can be discussed at that time but should not negate this. Gotitbro (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there is a clear consensus to post this. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because my crystal ball says it will probably be considered stale at the point of joining, or, prior to that, the point of acceptance, or, prior to that, the rest of NATO voting… this is to say, I support posting these certainly ITN-worthy but progressive stories at the first or most publicly newsworthy point. And the public probably care more about the moment of application and all the implications with it, than the political debates that will happen. Kingsif (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It might be months or even years until it happens (if it does given Turkey's opposition). This should be posted when it's ratified by NATO. I wouldn't post a blurb about winning the lottery just because I'd bought a ticket. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What a bad analogy! The probability of winning the lottery after buying a ticket is not even remotely similar to that of joining NATO after applying to do so! And it is precisely because it might take a long time before they actually join that it makes sense to report now that they formally intend to join! LongLivePortugal (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I do apologise *rolls eyes*. The rather obvious point I was making is that we'd be posting something that (a) may not happen for a long time, and (b) may not happen at all. Black Kite (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. We would be posting something that has already happened: they have applied! No-one is saying they will join. LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the point. No one is proposing a blurb about winning the lottery but about buying the ticket. To modify your example: If you were the preeminent scholar on why lotteries should be banned and have led a decades-long crusade to ban all lotteries, then the very act of you buying a lottery ticket would indeed be newsworthy, regardless of your chances of winning. And thus, the act of two countries with a decades/centuries-long policy of neutrality formally deciding to end their neutrality (buying a lottery ticket), is indeed newsworthy as well, regardless of them joining or not (winning the lottery). Regards SoWhy 15:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Although it is not ratified yet, but it is already a major event. Alex-h (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Still premature. Turkey plays the shill for RU ... for now anyway. [4]Sca (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    not really the process is formally underway, thats what the story is. Turkey objecting is just part of this process where Erdogan tries to gain some leverage in the whole ordeal, but it doesn't really detract from the actual story. 4iamking (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll see how Recep Tayyip plays the game. -- Sca (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Sca on this (and it's not that often I say that). Posting this now does seem premature to me, especially as it's not a formality that they'll actually join. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am most grateful for your lordship's astonishingly prescient remarks. -- Sca (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    the process being initiated and actually joining are two totally different stories, with totally different merits. thats more what my argument boils down to. That the process is officially started (and the what this means for European security) is what is dominating news headlines today. NATO admitting FI/SE would be something different. 4iamking (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until NATO accepts them. That will be the news. This is just the process leading up to the news. Jehochman Talk 13:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In which the details are devilish. -- Sca (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct but success or failure, the decision alone is newsworthy as evidenced by the huge amount of news sources saying that this decision alone is significant. Regards SoWhy 14:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very newsworthy guy007 (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That can't be. Sca says it's not newsworthy. Who to believe? 🙄 WaltCip-(talk) 14:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sca gives reasoning behind his, thus making his argument stronger. But oh my goodness, these are on the same level! 🙄 Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The official applications are big news now regardless of the result. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a specific reason why Finland and Sweden should be treated differently than all other countries which have recently joined NATO and a blurb was posted at the time of their official accession? NATO’s recent expansion has been repeatedly cited as an argument in support of the invasion, so it doesn’t stand to reason that this is a special case because of the developments in Ukraine. Also, it’s not a major change in global politics. I’d rather call a major change if countries like Mexico or Brazil, whose economies are much bigger than Finland and Sweden combined, apply to join NATO (albeit still wait until the official joining to support posting a blurb). This smells like a systemic bias in favouring the Nordic over the Balkan countries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the speed of the change is significant. Sweden and Finland have gone from neutral (or maybe first gear?) straight to fifth gear in the span of little over two months. Montenegro began negotiating with NATO after declaring independence, then applied for their Membership Action Plan two years after that, and then it took another 13 months before it was granted. That sort of process basically took just hours for Sweden and Finland, so okay, maybe there is bias, but it's with NATO (asterisk being Turkey) facilitating that sort of speed change. If Serbia applied for NATO membership tomorrow, that too would be a drastic change and would likewise be newsworthy.-- Patrick Neil, oѺ/Talk 18:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's all hypothetical at this pt. -- Sca (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Finland and Sweden have deliberately stayed out of NATO since the foundation. The big news is their sudden wish to join. Most Eastern European countries probably wanted to join as soon as possible (when the Soviet Union, Russia or Serbia didn't prevent them) but knew they couldn't get in right away. Their official applications may have been timed to optimize their chances of being accepted (and not be invaded for applying). PrimeHunter (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s not convincing at all. They stayed out by their choice because they wanted to be non-aligned, and NATO has never put any significant efforts to convince them to join. It was the same case with Yugoslavia which was non-aligned by choice, so Finland and Sweden are comparable to Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro and Macedonia as former Yugoslav states which joined NATO in the past. I think it’s a much greater shift when a country formerly part of the Warsaw Pact joins NATO.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The great shift for Eastern Europe was the end of communism and the breakup of the Warzaw pact, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. I assume that would have produced many ITN items if ITN existed. Most of the newly independent countries viewed Soviet Union/Russia/Serbia as a former occupier and possible invader they wanted protection from. The NATO applications were a natural consequence of the shift. It wasn't the shift itself. Sweden and Finland have been politically stable for at least 75 years. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From the NATO perspective, this is quite significant, as basically NATO will not only have the Baltic Sea as almost an internal one (Kaliningrad will be surrounded) but also they will have alternative routes of supply than the current choke point of the Suwałki Gap. So yes, them joining the Alliance does change quite a lot wrt to the defense of the Baltic states and Poland, even if Finland and Sweden were previously in a close relationship with NATO; and the defence of the Baltic is what preoccupied NATO commanders in the last couple of years.
    Besides, in NATO, economies don't matter as much as military prowess. For example, Finland has a quite well-organised army (they have conscription) and a robust navy. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Economies matter because NATO members commit a minimum of 2% of their GDP to defence spending. As for the military prowess, however well-organised armies both Finland and Sweden have, they can't be compared to many existing NATO members (e.g. United States, Turkey, United Kingdom, France etc.) and others which are out of it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there is clear consensus that the application itself meets the significance threshold, but have the supports considered the quality of target updates? It seems light to me. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it better to link to a single article, but there is Finland-NATO relations and Sweden-NATO relations, though the latter is not as well updated as the former. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, there is a consensus and should be marked as ready/posted soon. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose normally I'd support this since it's been in the news for so often and so long, but I doubt this item would have been in the news so long if it weren't so linked to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We need to decide if incremental updates in that news item are worth posting. Since we apparently thought no (c.f. Siege of Mariupol nomination) then we should not post this either. Banedon (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - We do not post these until they are admitted. The supports see this as a major change, but if it is, it is a major change regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine and that is already in ongoing. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Richard-of-Earth Please link to the policy that establishes "we do not post these until they are admitted". 331dot (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do that. He didn't say or suggest it was policy, & strawman arguments are uncivil. Everyone here uses that kind of phrasing to describe the normal posting behavior at ITN. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Remembering that "qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another," I would argue the significance here is not sufficient to overcome a very small update on a very long page. Readers would have to hunt for the part of the article covered by our blurb. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because we shouldn't be including applications to international supraorganizations, only accessions. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The BIG news today is the launching in Finland of a NATO/OTAN beer!Sca (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per Kiril Simeonovski, Jayron32, and Jim Michael. When it formally enters will be quite notable. But applications aren't important enough, and it's very possible that the application could still be vetoed by another NATO nation (most likely Turkey). Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - its official. And with the new dimensions of Sweden vs Turkey this is definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's official that they've applied, not that they've joined. -- Sca (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As others have argued above: Their mere application is not more ITN-worthy than Turkey's current opposition. Secondly, both countries are certainly less "neutral" than Switzerland because of their EU membership. Renewal6 (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because it's in the news and the article is of sufficient quality. Who decided that an application to NATO isn't newsworthy, and it's only the acceptance that's newsworthy? And since when is "newsworthy" part of ITN criteria? It's newsworthy because it's in the news. Editors are not "editorial boards" that decide whether or not an event is "important" enough to post. If it's in the news, then it's in the news--that means professional editorial boards have decided that it's newsworthy. We need to judge significance based on whether the world thinks its significant, not whether Wikipedia editors think it's significant. Levivich 15:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as no significant update is made to the article and its too soon. The section for both the countries say that they applied and that's not enough. Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Unless this application results in new notable news (e.g. new Russian invasion), then wait until formal accession. SpencerT•C 00:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 17[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations


(Closed, posted RD) RD/Blurb: Vangelis[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: Vangelis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Greek composer and musician Vangelis (pictured) dies at the age of 79 (Post)
News source(s): [5], Guardian, BBC, Kathimerini, AP, Stereogum
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Oscar winning composer. Needs some help Masem (t) 16:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. Career spanning around 60 years, the use of his famous Oscar-winning theme alone made him extraordinary enough. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. As per Kirill C1. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Ennio Morricone didn't get a blurb and he was a much bigger name than Vangelis. Granted, we shouldn't be holding ITN's incorrect decision on Morricone against all future composers, but Vangelis is simply not a big enough name in the field of film composing to get a blurb. That said, his article is almost ready for RD, with only one CN tag and one or two uncited paragraphs. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Granted, we shouldn't be holding ITN's incorrect decision on Morricone against all future composers" - I 100% agree with that and feel that Morricone should have been blurbed. "Vangelis is simply not a big enough name in the field of film composing" - he is not just in film composing, in the field of music. He composed music not only for films, also for Stephen Hawking funeral. His also wrote for ballet and Olympic events. Big enough. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed, Morricone should have been blurbed 100% but Vangelis is more than just an Oscar-winning composer, he's an extremely influential electronic musician. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Reviewing the Morricone itn, I think it is important to stress that an RD that is a household name, or has an extensive body of work should not be taken towards whether we should have a blurb. Insteaf we are looking for what the sources (which should be in the article) stress about the person's legacy or impact. Vangelis has that in spades, while that was clearly lacking on Morrisons.--Masem (t) 18:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Influential composer with a long and noteworthy career and a groundbreaking and influential electronic musician. If Sidney Poitier or Betty White get blurbs, this one should too. His death is already gaining global coverage with more international obits most likely to come in the next hours. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb A household name and one of the most outstanding and versatile composers in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Some of his scores, such as “Chariots of Fire”, simply can’t get out of mind. I agree that Ennio Morricone also deserved a blurb, but his omission isn’t an argument not to post this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD Per the Friends of Mr. Cairo. CoatCheck (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD Article is in good enough shape for the main page. Oppose blurb, because a blurb is not an honor or an award we bestow on dead people because we think they were really important. Blurbs are only for conveying information, and the only necessary information here is that he died. There is nothing unusual or noteworthy about his death that needs reporting. --Jayron32 18:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    People need to have something "unusual or noteworthy" about their death to get a blurb? That's news to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I merely reiterate the guidance at WP:ITNRD, which states "For deaths where the person's life is the main story, where the news reporting of the death consists solely of obituaries, or where the update to the article in question is merely a statement of the time and cause of death, the "recent deaths" section is usually used." This seems to check literally every one of those boxes. --Jayron32 18:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually used, not always. Still trying to get my head round "news reporting of the death consists solely of obituaries". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Think of "solely" as without coverage of police investigations, massive funerals or estate disputes. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. Ah yes, that's what real fame is (?) His death was a lead item on tonight's BBC News at Ten (with a clip of Chariots of Fire). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about fame (real or imagined). It's about whether the death is a story in itself. A television obituary, like in print, is basically a recap of the existing life story, with one new sentence/paragraph/postscript. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I think it is about fame. Obituaries describe a person's entire life and an assessment of its significance. The death itself is merely the trigger for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In cases like these, exactly. Vangelis, who had done everything which made him a beloved and valuable musician, is now dead at 79. Everyone dies at an age, there's no hook. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He can't appear with a blurb as there's "no hook"? If only he'd had a "pizza collar bomb" explode live on TV, he'd have been straight in. Too bad. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you keep trying to make a blurb an award for people when they have done something particularly fame-worthy? ITN is not in the business of awarding things, it is in the business of letting people know that Wikipedia articles exist. --Jayron32 11:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where else am I supposed to have done this? ITN is in the business of providing a blurb for those who have been outstanding in their field. Not just because their death is in someway notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two types of blurbs - for unusual death and for transformativeness. I think it is fair to say he was transformative. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD only I see obits, I don't see the sort of coverage that would justify a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In an hour the news spread to everywhere from The Guardian to Washington Post, and to outlets specialising in cinema. There is an article headline that says "How Blade Runner Changed Electronic Music Forever", there is also "What separates Vangelis from other composers of his time, is his implementation of synthesisers and electronic instruments within his compositions"[6], Grammy nominee writes that Vangelis "changed an entire era of music"[7]. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      As I write this, news of his death has only been publicly known for 2-3 hr tops. Long form obits like the NYTimes will take some time to come out, but even then, existing sources establish his legacy for a likely blurb. --Masem (t) 18:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I cite this "It’s probably fair to say that Vangelis’s score for Blade Runner is the crowning achievement of electronic film scores as a whole since, in 2019, Pitchfork declared it to be the greatest film score of all time. This feels completely earned, since not only is the score otherworldly and gorgeous, but it’s also hard to imagine this extremely influential sci-fi film being nearly as great without it"[8]. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb – Widely covered. 'Transformative' in many ways, not just for Chariots of Fire. [9] [10] [11]Sca (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: One has to admire this (from the AP story): "Vangelis said he didn’t ever experiment with his music and usually did everything on the first take."
    Sca (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    [reply]
  • support blurb he was an influential musician. --KaraLG84 (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pump the brakes I think this merits a blurb, but recent history has looked unkindly on rush to post death blurbs. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think the article's shape is good enough for an RD posting while blurb discussion continues. --Masem (t) 20:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, is there a way to post this to RD and have blurb discussions continue? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Old Man Dies, end of story. If he's a true household name, it'll draw its own attention in RD. No objection to a photo, if that's the main goal. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He is very famous, more so than random American congressmen that often end up in "Recent deaths". On the French Wikipedia, his picture is on the front page. Spafky (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He should have his picture here, too, just no sentence. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, the ultimate minimalistic defender against all death blurbs: old man dies. Would it change if he was younger? If it were a woman? As I said just a few days ago: making anything or anyone seem minimalistic, it really takes away the big picture. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've voted Old Woman Dies and opposed age-only blurbs for people under 70, too. OMD just happens more because it's usually an old man whom people suddenly treat as larger than life upon death. I'm not going to write at length about all the ways a death is ordinary, for obvious reasons, and won't feel bad about that. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subjectively, I also feel John Carpenter leads this field. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He's only 74 and looks pretty healthy? His music is fully defined by his films. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you're getting at, but yes, his original soundtracks have digitally aged well. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Carpenter has made music for his own films. He isn't regarded as a musical pioneer in his own right. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    His article regards him and Vangelis as "pioneers". Talk to it about that. In any case, if they also die alike, no blurb either. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd better let John know you've got him lined up. He'll be looking forward to it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is almost ready for RD while Blurb conversation goes on. I have added a few [citation needed] tags that should be quite easy to fill. If someone can get to that, it would be great. RIP. Ktin (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No blurb. Certainly not transformative enough for the levels we require.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are sources mentioned here, including the one where his score was named the best, and those given in the article, not enough? What sources could possibly show that levels are enough? Kirill C1 (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb RD is adequate here. Not one of the rare cases where a blurb for a recent death is justified. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No blurb Per others, RD is enough, and I dont feels like he meets any of the 2 criteria that could qualify it for one. 4iamking (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I see at least 3 {CN} tags in the career section, and another in the personal life section. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support He is a very famous composer. If random politicians from South Dakota or whatever end up on the Recent Death page, Vangelis absolutely deserves to. The French Wikipedia already has his picture framed on the front page, for example. --Spafky (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But if they're from North Dakota, that's a different story. – Sca (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca absolutely. North Dakota has an incredibly powerful family of politicians called the Bongbongs, and they have been known to forcefully disappear people from the fictitious state of Wyoming. I heard that information from my great great granny, who [[WP:COI|worked for them as a chauffeur for a couple years back in the summer of '69. I think. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my Mom hailed from N.D., from a tiny town 40 mi. north of Bismarck, i.e. in the Middle of Nowhere. Later they moved to a larger town, which you can visit here. – Sca (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD. 65.94.214.187 (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb of course We posted literalwho american judges no one has ever heard about. Alas this website is dominated by americans and american culture. Had Vangelis been American, he would have 100% posted already. DzhungarRabbit (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I count one - just one - American story in the ITN ticker and one American death in RD (not counting naturalized citizens). You have a right to your opinion, but nevertheless it originates from falsehood. WaltCip-(talk) 13:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The audacity of wikipedia admins to think their opinion is the truth is astonishing. That star wars actress and some american judge have been posted, meanwhile many great minds will never be simply because american culture dominates 90% of wikipedia. DzhungarRabbit (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fisher has been acknowledged by most of the contributors here as a mistake, and Ginsburg's death was significant because of the situation during which it occurred. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posting Carrie Fisher's death as a blurb was not a mistake. The sheer volume of news coverage her death received dwarfs that of most celebrity deaths. It was the right call. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least we posted this dwarf celebrity death. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I count one - just one - American story in the ITN ticker and one American death in RD (not counting naturalized citizens).". First, why naturalised citizens are not to be counted? Second, the comment was about blurb posting. Non-english speaking people do not usually get blurb, and even if they do, they get pulled. It is fair to point that this occurs in case of blurbs. If even such celebrated and known actors as William Hurt doesn't get blurb, there is barely chance a European gets blurb. At the moment of his death Shane Warne had 30 Wikpedia entries, Vangelis - 65. Who is more worldwide famous is obvious. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking Ready for RD It looks we're about 50-50 on the blurb, but there do not appear to be any quality objections. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted RD. --PFHLai (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb I mean no disrespect to Vangelis, of course. I even owned the 1492 score on CD. But ~24 hours on, I'm not seeing the sort of reaction here that I think warrants a blurb, and he was no longer especially in the limelight. Also, we blurbed Carrie Fisher five and a half years ago, it's time to move on (not sure who the American judge in this case is). Nohomersryan (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many votes oppose are based on not blurbing Morricone, it seems. I do not understand ahwt sort of reaction would warrant blurb. It was previously said that the sources should demonstrate he is transformative. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note re: Carrie Fisher (and other such examples): The mistakes of the past are not a justification for continuing such mistakes indefinitely. Examples of times in the past where we screwed up doesn't actually bind us to continue to screw up, so examples of "we did this thing here before, so why aren't we doing it now" are always unconvincing. --Jayron32 13:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and that was John Williams, bless him, not even John Carpenter. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "The mistakes of the past are not a justification for continuing such mistakes indefinitely." I agree with that. Not posting Morricone was mistake. And on basis of not posting him every composer is not being posted, Mikis Theodorakis, author of sirtaki dance, was not posted despite having merit for blurb, there are votes against Vangelis now on that basis. We should get out of this circle and posted extremely transformative composer. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of which things we did in the past that you think were mistakes, you shouldn't be bringing them up. What you should be doing is applying the standards of well-established best practices, as laid out at WP:ITNRD, and assessing each individual nomination based on those standards and information from reliable sources. And if consensus goes a different way than you wanted it to on this nomination, forgetting it and moving on to the next one. --Jayron32 17:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We have any consensus here? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I can tell. The current vote seems to be 8 in favor to 10 opposed to blurb. I wouldn't describe that as a clear consensus either way. --Jayron32 17:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "The current vote seems to be 8 in favor to 10 opposed to blurb" I do not think that User:CoatCheck opposed blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Regardless of which things we did in the past that you think were mistakes, you shouldn't be bringing them up. What you should be doing is applying the standards of well-established best practices, as laid out at WP:ITNRD, and assessing each individual nomination based on those standards and information from reliable sources." Reliable sources and international coverage point to him being pioneer in electronic music[12][13]"Vangelis will go down in history as the composer of the soundtrack for the film Chariots of Fire, perhaps the best sports film in history"[14]. He made innovative way of writing soundtrack - he wrote it without rehearsals: "When he was creating the various themes for the film Vangelis would naturally compose, improvise and record his pieces as the scenes were being played before him, letting the visuals and tone of the scene direct his musical progressions without prior rehearsal". "This natural, unrehearsed reactionary creative interpretation of what the composer was seeing was unprecedented". Kirill C1 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. For brevity's sake, I'll just say I agree with the comments above that he was transformative in his field and we should post him regardless of whether we posted person x (which is less offensive than the knee-jerk "old person dies" oppose). As an aside, I think we should revisit my (semi-serious) suggestion to topic ban anyone who is still bringing up Carrie Fisher at this point. -- Vaulter 18:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At the very least Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Was she related to Carrie Nation? -- Sca (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He received public service medal from NASA, had an asteroid (no 6354) named after him and was made Commandeur of Ordre des Arts et des Lettres[15]. He appeared on Greek postage stamp. That is kind of honours we expect for blurbed persons. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Support blurb per all supports above. More famous and historically influential than, e.g., the current president of Greece, if that person happened to die today. BD2412 T 23:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • BD2412 Katerina Sakellaropoulou wouldn't get a blurb if she was tragically run over by a bus today either, because she's only been in the position two years and President is mostly ceremonial anyway. Try again? Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point stands. I didn't say he was equally famous and historically influential, but more so. Offhand, I can't think of another Greek of equivalent notability alive today. BD2412 T 00:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe Tommy Lee. He's mostly American, his awards have both been shared and his music is pretty pedestrian. But he did help launch the sex tape industry. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A-ha, Irene Papas still lives, way nearer equivalent. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Newswise, famous fatalities have a short shelf life. It's been four days. If we're going to blurb this, we should do so now, or drop it & move on. – Sca (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh do be quiet Sca, you don’t call the shots as you contribute nothing here. Maybe it’s time for the WP:NOTHERE ban, what do you think? 123.243.3.251 (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you "call the shots" with your one unsigned, obnoxious contribution? Halt's Maul. -- Sca (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, the news on his death only broke 2 days ago, 2 days after his death. I filed it on the day of death since that was more appropriate in this situation (compared to when a death is reported a week later). --Masem (t) 13:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now trying to think of who "calls the shots" here. Sounds like a recipe for universal loathing. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no hard time limit, per se, per Wikipedia:In the news#Procedure for posting. —Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb per Kirill C1, which in my opinion appears to be strongly notable enough. MarioJump83! 07:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: June Preston[edit]

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

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

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

(Closed) End of Siege of Mariupol[edit]

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

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

Article updated
Nominator's comments: We posted the Moskva sinking, implying that sufficiently widely-covered events in the war deserve a blurb. Banedon (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oppose – There was an element of inevitability about this, which wasn't the case with the Moskva. While possibly symbolic for the Russians, the final evacuation of Mariupol doesn't substantially change the balance of forces. – Sca (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, wait. Nothing is clear yet. We only know that a chunk (probably a large one) of Ukrainian soldiers in Azovstal got evacuated, just at this moment it doesn't seem they have ceded control of the plant. Another thing is that the Ukrainian side, quoted by AP, says that some Ukrainian troops still remain inside the plant. This medieval horror of a siege might be already wrapping up, but the credits haven't appeared yet on the screen. When it ends in whatever outcome, then yes, we should all be pounding on the F button hard. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wondered about that statement -- not a direct quote -- in the AP piece saying Ukraine was "working to pull out the fighters that remain." It seemed somewhat dodgy. Note that farther down in the story an ex-Ukraine official, Oleksandr Danylyuk, is quoted as saying (time not specified) in a BBC story that those remaining in the plant are still "able to defend it ... but I think it’s important to understand that their main mission is completed and now their lives need to be saved." I got the impression this statement may have been made before the evacuations detailed here. Situation murky. -- Sca (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I rest my case. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither AP nor BBC already feature the response of Danylyuk about the remaining soldiers. Still, we have no rush. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks to me like the first statement in the AP story probably is their paraphrase of the quote in the BBC story they cite. If the AP had its own quote they would have used it. War reporting these days seems to be somewhat incestuous. -- Sca (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait as per the very good summary by Szmenderowiecki. Not 100% clear that this has ended. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as this is already covered by the ongoing item. And we never decided that “sufficiently widely-covered events in the war deserve a blurb”. The sinking of the Moskva was posted because of the records that she was the largest Soviet/Russian warship to sink after World War II and the first Russian flagship to sink in more than a century.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WaitReports on the actual situation on the ground still a bit dodgy as to if fighting is definitively over (reports suggest some ukrainians may still be held up inside the works), otherwise significant enough I think. 4iamking (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose what the hell is a "Russian victory"? Don't use Wikipedia's main page as a device for advancing pro-Russian propaganda. Disgusting. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reporting on a russian victory if there has been a russian victory is not pro-Russian propoganda. I despise what russia is doing as much as anyone but also udnerstand that we have to remove that bias while reporting. guy007 (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what it is, like it or not. The siege of Mariupol ending would mean Mariupol is entirely under Russian control, and thus a Russian Victory. That's reporting facts, not "pro-Russian propaganda". We're talking about a battle, not the war. 4iamking (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys are crazy. This is the "Russian special operation". Declaring "victory" is utter bollocks. Still, why not get the Russian flags out to celebrate guys! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    no one is calling it a "special operation" other than Russia themselves, if not a "victory", what word would you use to describe the outcome of the battle? you can either call it a Ukrainian Defeat or a Russian Victory, but both amount to the same thing. 4iamking (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is calling it that, The Rambling Man is being purposely obtuse to accuse us of being russian sympathizers. guy007 (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that "Russian propaganda", just because ukraine lost doesn't mean it's fake and it's "russian propaganda". I could say more, but Wikipedia wil not let me. (As usual). CR-1-AB (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to me we should avoid the victory/defeat labels by referring to Ukrainian evacuation from and/or Russ occupation of Mariupol -- a widely known locale due to weeks of focused coverage. -- Sca (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait As per Szmenderowiecki guy007 (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unless and until the war itself ends, individual sieges and battles are rather fluid ways to report on the war. We already have a link to an article about the war, which is sufficient. The status of the various military units and the territory under their control is not worth updating at this level of granularity; it's fluid anyways, and if people want that they can get there through the link that is already there. --Jayron32 18:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Over now, very important. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per TRM. "Victory"? Come on. This is not how we should describe this humanitarian disaster. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per a previous discussion we had where individual battles should not be blurbed (as per the war being labelled "Ongoing" along with COVID). To all the folks out there who are claiming that Support !voters are "russian sympathizers" should be ashamed of yourselves for violating WP:ACCUSE and WP:CIVIL. Come on now... but Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Default position is to not post each battle. At first glance, the significance here is in the remarkable resistance on the city against overwhelming force. That being the case, the eventual fall is expected and not noteworthy. What's more, posting a lesser Russian victory days after their loss of Kharkiv creates a unneeded air of bias. It's just why we're better off just pointing to the Ongoing. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note. Russians didn't lose Kharkiv because they never captured it in the first place. They simply retreated. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment does this mean we're done posting incremental updates as blurbs? We posted the unverified claims of war crimes, we posted the propaganda victory (but strategically worthless) story about that Russian ship, and we posted I think some story about Russia at the UN. I hope it's finished now. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it's not over yet according to BBC. That said, I completely disagree with LaserLegs unusual perspective on the Russian invasion. Nfitz (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Kay Mellor[edit]

Article: Kay Mellor (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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: