Wikipedia : In the news/Candidates/June 2022

Comment I feel like it would be useful to explain in a sentence in the lead what the position he held is about. At first glance I assumed he was some sort of officer in the Maltese army. Other than that, I'm left wondering what (if anything) he achieved in his time in office. He pledged to reform a constitutional charter, but unclear if he succeeded in that before his death, and otherwise the only thing mentioned is his trip to Lourdes, which is hardly earth shattering... — Amakuru (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: I've added some more content. But frankly -you can do the search by yourself on the internet to corroborate it– there is not much more information than official visits, reception of credentials, messages on key days for the Order and funerals. It's still a very ceremonial position of an Order that, despite having officially recognized sovereignty, has little executive power. The form of the sources is the basic one because I want to have it ready as soon as possible and to be able to make sure that the nomination is not filed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. Support then, it looks OK as a start class article. Marking as ready. — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice Amakuru, btw. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support current version has reasonable coverage of the events under his tenure. Joofjoof (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Nobuyuki Idei[edit]

Oppose on quality a lot of work must be done. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Erasmus Schöfer[edit]

This wikibio is READY for RD. It is long enough to qualify (600+ words of prose), has footnotes where they are expected, and its formatting looks alright. And Earwig found absolutely nothing wrong. Good to go. --PFHLai (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy[edit]

Oppose -- Plenty of things spokespeople do have global repercussions. Very little of them meet the bar for a blurb. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is even the case of where the article may have been created too early, as whether this will have impacts 10+ years down the road is definitely not clear. --Masem (t) 05:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Something controversial in politics *gasp*! Not groundbreaking or even newsworthy. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Politician says something that angers people. Next. The Kip (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, recommending WP:SNOW closure as it’s clear consensus to post will not develop. The Kip (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close the article has been redirected. It seems there's consensus that this doesn't need an article, yet alone an ITN posting. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Stop nominating stuff that are very minor, it's just an Islamophobic person, which is bad, but not notable CR-1-AB (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close per all above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

June 6[edit]

(Posted) RD: Orlando Jorge Mera[edit]

Is the article long enough? Template:Ok Is it well cited? Template:Ok Is it generally issue free? Template:Ok then this article is READY for RD, and thus I support this nom. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 10:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the section on his career could be expanded a bit more.... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

But maybe is enough... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Bob Talamini[edit]

Oppose on quality far from ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the article long enough? Template:Negative Is it well cited? Template:Negative Is it otherwise generally issue free? Template:Ok Please fix the article (currently orange tagged for citations) in order to better its chances of being on ITN. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 10:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a stubby wikibio (only 271 words of readable prose) and the two longest paragraphs have zero footnotes. Are there anything else about this Kentucky Pro Football Hall-of-Famer to write about? Please expand the wikibio and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Zeta Emilianidou[edit]

Is the article well cited? Template:Ok Is it long enough? Template:Ok Is it generally issue free? Template:Ok Then this article is READY for RD, and I Support this nom. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 20:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 23:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Boris Johnson no confidence vote[edit]

Who cares He's a leader of a country the size of Peru and with the population less than 1/3 of the biggest chinese province. Not to mention that leaders in that country change constantly but the policies don't. Oppose DzhungarRabbit (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I care -- from a standpoint of news. -- Sca (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Unless he's ousted, it shouldn't be posted, but until the outcome is known this is very premature. 4iamking (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ya think? -- Sca (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait as 4iamking stated. Pretty sure if he is replaced that it would still be ITN/R, but otherwise this is just domestic politics. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fake is just getting it into the queue, I guess. -- Sca (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait per above. I don't know enough on UK politics to know what happens if the no confidence vote goes through - does that assure he is removed from office, or us it like US impeachment when one body may decide not to act on affirmed findings of anylother body. We want to post "the point of no return" ideally. --Masem (t) 19:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He gets removed as the leader of the Conservative party, which is a defacto removal from office. Its up to the Conservative party then to nominate an (Interm) leader to replace him. It's an internal party matter though and not a vote of confidence in the House of Commons against the government. 4iamking (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If he loses then he has to resign and there'll be a leadership election in the Conservative Party. He won't be ousted as PM right away but once that leadership election is finalised then he'll leave. Quite major as these hardly ever happen XxLuckyCxX (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if there is a change in government, sure. Until then, no. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Not expecting the vote to be successful (as in there won't be a lack of confidence for Johnson) but worth waiting to see the result before we do anything else XxLuckyCxX (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's certainly in the news; I'm currently watching the live coverage of the vote, following a feverish day of speculation. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was 211-148 in favour of Boris. The news media will be full of analysis and speculation about the implications now. The issue will remain In the News. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW - Results are out; Boris is in, Suggest SNOW close. 4iamking (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose He has won the vote and knowing him, will stagger on. Would only have been worth posting if he'd lost-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

June 5[edit]

(Posted) RD: Christopher Pratt[edit]

Support article looks good. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be a candidate for the new disambiguation parenthetical, given the other guy is exclusively "Chris"? GreatCaesarsGhost 17:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Left name as-is without any parenthetical, but open for discussion (not sure here versus WP:ERRORS). Spencer^T•C 05:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Ken Kelly (artist)[edit]

Is the article well cited? Template:Negative Is it long enough? Template:Negative Is it otherwise issue free? Template:Ok Please fix the sourcing issues regarding this wikibio in order to ensure that it is ready for RD. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 10:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stub: Only 232 words Template:Negative Grimes2 (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) French Open[edit]

Oppose Insufficient prose on the matches aside from a sentence each for the singles' winners.—Bagumba (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - we need a write up for every event in the Events section, otherwise this article is incomplete and not suitable for main page coverage. See 2020 French Open for the most recent example that was posted. — Amakuru (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's just a pile of flags! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Whilst I don't think we need a massive amount of info on some of the smaller competitions (say wheelchair doubles), it should have some prose. The main competitions should have a significant summary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article just lists the winners and their nationalities. More prose is needed. Hamza Ali Shah ^Talk 17:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality article needs additional prose in order to qualify for ITN. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 19:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose needs more prose on each event (other than just having the winners named in the lead). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I agree article needs more information on each event Alex-h (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Owo church attack[edit]

Support on notability, but needs expansion. I would also say "Catholic Church" and not "Roman Catholic Church". -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Rockstone, but the death toll is still unclear so I would caution from explicitly saying that at least 50 died. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comment Could "mass shooting and bomb attack" be changed to something simpler such as "attack" or "massacre"? Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shortened it to "attack". -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They have recovered 50 bodies very early on so that's how we know know its at least 50; it's the only confirmed number so far.Abcmaxx (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative/weak support so far. This BBC piece makes this event sound like it does not stand out against the broader backdrop of recent violence there, but it does not have the death toll. The unconfirmed 50+ strikes me as significant. It is hard to tell at this point whether this attack is part of some broader conflict, and which one. Insurgency in Southeastern Nigeria has casualties just over 100 people on one side of that conflict, so if it's that one, this would be a significant escalation.Chaser (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its death toll makes it stand out, as does the fact that it happened in SW Nigeria, outside the usual areas which insurgents target. The Boko Haram insurgency is primarily in the NE, the Nigerian bandit conflict in the NW & the insurgency in Southeastern Nigeria in the SE. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Many dead sadly. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 21:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support when expanded beyond stub plus I added altblurb2 which is house style. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. I think it’s irrelevant if this is part of a broader conflict because the attack is significant on its own merits. In case there’s a significant escalation as a result, we can move it to ongoing as we’ve done many times before.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality needs destubbing, when ready, it should be ALT2 4iamking (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, quality is constantly improving as the situation develops. BD2412 T 23:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, I think that by tomorrow the page will have significantly expanded. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should this be Owo church attack rather than Ondo church attack? I know there's another Owo in a different Nigerian state but usually these events are named after the town not the state.Abcmaxx (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done - EugεnS¡m¡on 06:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on notability, and somewhat prefer Alt Blurb II. Nsk92 (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I support on significance, but I have concerns about the article content. Currently the article notes that no group has taken responsibility, but then uses weasely language to say that "many locals accused" members of an ethnic group and members of a semi-nomadic tribe of "complicity". The sentence in question is sourced to a reliable source that does support the content, but I don't like that we are using wiki-voice to basically cast aspersions on entire tribes and ethnic groups without evidence. If this gets fixed, my !vote changes to support. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that of many such tragedies in that part of the world; mainly that no-one knows anything for sure and the only way of finding anything out is ask the locals, word of mouth, and then relate that as a possibility. Ultimately this was part of an ongoing ethno-religious conflict, so that is why fingers are pointed at certain groups, because those are the most likely sources of the violence.Abcmaxx (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:ONUnicorn amended it as per your comments. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem with saying that locals accused Fulani herders of responsibility? There's an entire ongoing conflict in Nigeria between farmers and Fulani herders. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue was according to the poster that it wasn't entirely clear who was accusing whom and in what context, and as a result sounded unencyclopaedic, but I've fixed this now.Abcmaxx (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Terrible tragedy. Any of the blurbs could be fine but I’d go with the initial blurb. -TenorTwelve (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- marked as Ready. The article seems to be in an acceptable state for ITN. Rest in Peace all the victims. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Wait – Thin. Sans 'Background' and 'Aftermath,' narrative is 275 words (out of 590 total). Two unnamed 'reverends' quoted. General significance seems negligible. – Sca (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Significance is clear, while Nigeria has ongoing violence, this was primarily in the north. An attack of this type in the south was unheard of. And while the two reverend are unnamed, I assume its because only their position matters, like when a spokesman for the Vatican gives a statement... its not who the spokesman is but what they say. --Masem (t) 13:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting unnamed (and unofficial) sources volubly in a fairly short article isn't kosher by journalism standards, and I would think also not acceptable in encyclopedic writing. -- Sca (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our BLP rules tend towards omission of names of non public people. While the names can be found in the given sources, the names are the least important thing than being a reverend at the church that survived the attack. This seems to be a really odd complaint.--Masem (t) 14:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tq

What? This was one of the worst terrorist attacks in West African history, and one that is likely to hold a significant effect on the 2023 Nigerian presidential election. No idea why events like the Charlie Hebdo shooting (which killed 12 people and started a similar uproar in France) were sent to the ITN without too much issue but a massacre in Nigeria that killed at least four times more people is considered "negligible." Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this attack stands out from the others, but if I had to guess, mostly because massacres in Nigeria are a relatively frequent occurrence, kinda like mass shootings in the USA. 4iamking (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The situation remains murky. Per AP, the attackers haven't been identified and their whereabouts is unknown. Speculation alludes to Boko, but this is merely a guess based on previous history. Given the circumstances, Wait would seem more appropriate than posting at this pt. (Changing my vote.) -- Sca (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Boko Haram is unlikely, if anything, it's probably part of the herder-farmer conflict in the country (which for the most part involves herder attacks and massacres on farmers) than the Boko Haram insurgency. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping I've nominated a few Africa-based articles (by chance rather than anything else) and the same issue always gets highlighted over and over again and the response is nearly always the same; we may never know anything more than we know now, there is overall little chance of any meaningful investigation. That is just the sad truth, that there is a chance that not only the perpetrators will evade the authorities but also we may never know the true motive and background of them. This doesn't make the event any less notable though. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Why are no URL links for the following sources (listed above) not provided? Agence France-Presse, Reuters, The Guardian, Al-Jazeera, ABC News, VOA, BBC. – Sca (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All those are referenced and linked in the article. Suspect the nom did not know to bring links forward. Masem (t) 14:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Spencer^T•C 00:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment – This DW report on their English newscast Tues. appeared to reflect some uncertainty about the death toll. Puzzling. (Just an observation.) – Sca (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Purely FWIW, German Wiki's ITN blurb says, "In Nigeria, several dozen people have died in an attack on a church" (In Nigeria sind bei einem Anschlag auf eine Kirche mehrere Dutzend Menschen ums Leben gekommen). Their article cites 18 sources, all in English. Puzzling. – Sca (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Kazakh constitutional referendum[edit]

Wait until results. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I can't tell easily when the results are expected but it seems like within a few weeks or months so it is best to wait. --Masem (t) 12:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per above. The article looks great and are constitutional amendments in very important aspects of the country, so, IMO, is ITN-worthy. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait till results Don't care about the specifics, but the blurb should mention the preceding unrest DzhungarRabbit (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - Needs at least the preliminary results. 4iamking (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support after exit poll as per previous comments. Article very detailed and referenced already. Infobox needs expansion though I think? Abcmaxx (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb3 - Major news media is now reporting overwhelming victory for supporters of the amendment, so I think we can now move ahead given that there's no ambiguity regarding the outcome. Therefore I've added altblurb3. Melmann 11:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb4 Above, but blurb 3 seems not quite well-worded enough. The Kip (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ready now, added a more condensed version in ALT2.4iamking (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like mentioning either the referendum or “voters” is necessary; otherwise, one could be led to believe this was a governmental/parliamentary action, not a democratic one. The Kip (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think having "(insert country) votes", would imply some sort of direct democracy. Regardless, any country upending their constitution to this extent is extremely noteworthy, the procedure in doing so is almost a secondary detail. 4iamking (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. On notability this item certainly deserves posting, but the article needs to be updated further to actually say that the referendum approved the constitutional amendments, and there need to be several solid WP:RS cited that explicitly say that. For the moment preliminary results say that there was a 68.4% voter turnout, and that 77.2% of the participating voters voted yes. However, Article 91 of the Constitution of Kazakhstan requires that, in order for a referendum approve a constitutional amendment, at least 50% of eligible voters take part (this requirement has apparently been met, so that the referendum is considered "valid"), and that at least 50% of the participating voters vote for the amendment in at least two thirds of "regions, cities of republican significance and the capital."[33] The news sources I have seen don't say anything about this latter requirement having been met (although it probably has been met). Nsk92 (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless im missing something, no regional breakdown was included in the preliminary results that were released by the electoral commission, other than alluding to the fact that it passed with 77.18%. It's not ideal but I think the margin that high it's hard to image the regional requirements not being met. Without proper results I get that it's speculative in nature (as improbably as the other outcome is), but it could be several days to weeks until we get that. 4iamking (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is necessary to wait for the final official results before posting. However, I feel we do need to wait until some WP:RS clearly say that the constitutional amendments were approved by the referendum. The figure of 77.18% of the participating voters voting in favor is insufficient in this regard since we don't know how it was distributed geographically between the regions. Nsk92 (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The electoral comission officially states that the referendum met the majority threshold in all 17 regions, so any concerns of it potentially not meeting the regional requirement can now be dismissed. In addition the constitutional amendments come into force as of today (June 8). 4iamking (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:U If this information is added to the article, I think this would be ready. Spencer^T•C 05:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The Guardian headlines its results story with "Kazakhs vote to strip founding figure Nazarbayev of privileges," saying 77% voted in favor. I'm not clear on the significance of this referendum. – Sca (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article is plenty long enough, seems to be well constructed, and didn't have any obvious [citation needed] tags. I think it meets the notability requirement as well. Rockphed (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Planning to post. So, which blurb is the best? Help me out :) --Tone 10:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For me, altblurbIV! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as ready. Consensus to post has developed. Waiting on posting admin. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 03:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Spencer^T•C 19:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Bangladesh fire[edit]

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

Support It could be a tad bit longer (I added some information) but given that they're still battling the fire and priority is on health services, I don't expect more details to emerge immediately. --Masem (t) 12:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support decent C class. Notable event. Venkat TL (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it's easily important enough & the article is good enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability and quality. Very fast on article creation as well.Abcmaxx (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Widely covered due to toll, now put at 49. We might wait a bit for further detail additions to 400-word article. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks important enough for ITN, it's the top story on BBC News for me right now. And article is more than just a disaster stub, so good enough to post IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, This should be in ITN and article explains well. Alex-h (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still a bit thin – 500 words – for Main Page promotion. Still burning at 10 p.m. local time, and still developing as to death toll. – Sca (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking at available sources and there's almost nothing else that can be added at this point, since the fire is still going and toll still rising. --Masem (t) 16:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Readable prose size" is 665 words, which is long enough, and there aren't any significant gaps. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – Yeah, it does total about 665 words now, and is quite readable. ('Weak' due to lack of wider import.) Suggest change "as of Sunday afternoon" to "at Sunday evening" (AP: "The fire raged for a second night"). – Sca (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 4[edit]

New President of Albania[edit]

Tentative support, though the article says he was elected on June 4, so this nomination should be placed there. --Tone 12:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- So moved. --13:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose on quality paragraph on early life is unsourced, and most of the rest of the Biography section just reads like a CV. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not ITNR, as the office of President of Albania is ceremonial, not executive, so generally, such nominatios aren't usually very successful (Mattarella's re-election is a bad precedent). In any case, I think the main article should be the presidential election, the quality of which is far from acceptable. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tony Pajaczkowski[edit]

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

Support Article was in terrible shape before his death. Great job with the expansion! – Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 3[edit]

(Posted) RD: Dorothy E. Smith[edit]

Support article looks great. Good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 23:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sophie Freud[edit]

Support, Good Article for an honorable academic person. Alex-h (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slightly barebones, but alright for an RD; noting that Sophie was Freud's granddaughter. Gotitbro (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Larry Hillman[edit]

Support Article is good enough. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ann Turner Cook[edit]

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

~~There are still some Template:Cn tags that need to be sorted out. After that, we are good to go!~~ Support article has been fixed, and is now READY for RD. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 02:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support article now seems well sourced. Hamza Ali Shah ^Talk 18:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support marking ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support short but good enough. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 23:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2[edit]

(Posted) RD: Agneta Klingspor[edit]

Support Article has no issues. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the article long enough? Template:Ok Is it well cited? Template:Ok Is it otherwise issue free? Template:Ok I support this wikibio, as it is READY for RD. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 00:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kai Bumann[edit]

Support 368 words. Sourced. Well done, Gerda! Grimes2 (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Article is good and has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post posting support Darn, Template:Ping posted faster than I could support! Anywho, this wikibio meets minimum RD requirements. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 00:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Alden Roche[edit]

Support Good enough. Grimes2 (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, appears good enough. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: David Holford[edit]

Oppose Article needs expansion, for starters, it doesn't mention any info about his death. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TDKR Chicago 101, I've expanded it a little bit to include info about his death. Any more advice would be appreciated. Hamza Ali Shah ^Talk 22:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Article is well cited, however, I do have some concerns about its length. Otherwise, it's generally issue free and should be ready for RD. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 01:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At 371 words, this wikibio is actually several words longer than Kai Bumann's. Posted next to Bumann. --PFHLai (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Marion Barber III[edit]

Template:Archive-top Template:ITN candidate

Support Article looks good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II[edit]

Generally Support as I can't find any lack of citations in the article, and for most, we will never likely see another one of these in our lifetime. I wish the article was reworked to kill off the proseline ("On date, this happened") and be more cohesive, but that's not a requirement for posting. --Masem (t) 12:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this is just a ceremonial celebration with absolutely no impact.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kiril. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as we had posted the Diamond Jubilee back in 2012, so we have solid precedence for this. These don't happen very often.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Very widely covered historic – though ceremonial – event. Ignoring it could been seen as a gratuitous snub of Britain's longest-reigning monarch. – Sca (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: – Surely a more on-topic photo could be found. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I can't see why this wouldn't be notable enough, how many monarchs make 70 years? The Queen is probably the most well known in the world. Article seems fine, could do with splitting some proseline down, but not enough to keep off the main page Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only the 4th Platinum Jubilee in history. Will be a long time until we see another. Mjroots (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously significant event with worldwide coverage. Polyamorph (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably the only such jubilee apt for ITN and we have precedent. Gotitbro (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kiril Simeonovski Gamaliel (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Lee Vilensky. Queen will, for sure, live forever, so shouldn't we consider adding her jubilee to ITNR? Arado Ar 196 (talk/contributions) 15:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do think there's a legitimate case to make for adding jubilees to ITN/R, and I'm rather surprised they weren't there already. WaltCip-(talk) 16:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the jubilees of all reigning monarchs at the time? From Monaco to Bahrain, passing through Bhutan and the Netherlands? I don't see it... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it was done, I think it would have to be certain rare jubilees added to ITN/R--maybe golden jubilees and up. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The celebration of Platinum Jubilees (70th anniversary of taking reign) is pretty rare. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Widly covered and fairly rare event that directly impacts a number of nations. Maybe a ceremonial event which is why my support is just a slight one, but still seems worthy. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Kiril. Alex-h (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Polyamorph and Lee Vilenski. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a decent article on a notable event, there aren't many platinum jubilees and this is getting widespread coverage.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - an almost unique event with worldwide media coverage. We previously posted the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II, which is far less common event. The only comparable event in modern times would have been the uncelebrated 70th jubilee of the Thai king in 2016, who was in very-poor health and died during the year. And of course there was Louis XIV of France in 1713. Nfitz (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support extremely rare event that is clearly getting significant international coverage. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment now that it's clear that for most editors this event is ITN-worthy, can we talk about quality? There is still an orange-tagged section. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The overall article is in good shape. I'm a little confused about the expansion tag says it needs more info about events planned in Canada, but reading further such as the "Events from February to May" subsection it covers the events planned and executed so I don't see the need for this tag. I might need some clarification about this tag's purpose. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A large event with international attention. Would be very unlikely to happen again in our lifetimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haris920 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted The image will follow once cascading protection takes effect. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re -- Would this be a better picture? Ktin (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I personally have no preference. I have not changed the image yet because I'm not clear on if cascading protection happened. The image doesn't appear at Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en, though a box with the file name is present. Strange. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This image transcluded properly, so I am changing to it now. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pull -- this is completely expected, and her reign is non-notable; monarchies are silly. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Monarchies are silly" sounds very "I don't like it" to me. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hat

Especially from someone who routinely supports daily events like mass shootings in Amurica. Jesus, get some contextual thinking. This is an encyclopedia. How many monarchs (whether you like them or not, and yeah, try hurling "Boston Tea Party" at us and we'll all just shrug and most of us will say "never heard of it") have reigned an Empire/Commonwealth/even a nation, for 70 years? Nah, not newsworthy. But yet another prick with a legal AR-15 shooting up kids is significant? Get a grip. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Celebrating her reign is not newsworthy in the same way that the brutal murders of 19 children is, and you know this. Mass shootings that kill more than 8+ people remain rare in America. This is just blurbing a celebration of a 96 year old woman who's only accomplishment is being birthed by someone whose ancestors many generations earlier had murdered their way to the throne. Would you support blurbing celebrations of the 250th anniversary of American independence come 2026? That's about the same level. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The comments here and above are excessively disparaging. Not sure why this has turned into a this not that discussion, ITN is not bound to only specific types of items. And sure we can have articles for other jubilees as well, if they are well written and have coverage et al, but we will look into it when the time comes and shouldn't be a holdback now. Gotitbro (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. America as an entity supports the mass murder of people through its reluctance to do anything about gun control. That's absolutely nothing to do with a monarch reigning for 70 years. I love that you have caveat your "mass shootings" with "kill more than 8+" is rare! Just utterly bizarre. Point me to the mass shootings in any other first world country with 8+ killings ever. Happy to support Yank independence 2026 as that's meaningful. Mass shootings which happen every single day in America, utterly pointless. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least you're intellectually consistent, I'll give you that. Other first world countries have had mass shootings of more than 8+ deaths; the one that comes to mind immediately is the 2020 Nova Scotia attacks, which killed 22. It's certainly far more common here in the US. My apologies for being a bit of a dick. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hab

Pull. Not a long term significant event, and we're not a news ticker. I'm glad of the extra day holiday and all, but it's a bit absurd to post fluff like this when we also regularly bypass news items that actually have a real effect on people's lives. — Amakuru (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You got a holiday, which means it's already had more of an effect on your life than a rickety airplane crashing in the mountains of Nepal. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It is probably by far the most significant monarchist event in recent history. And it's certainly all over the news. And it's relevant to hundreds of millions of people on English language Wikipedia. And it's 100% more relevant and longer lasting than the most recent mass shooting in the US. No problem at all with this, and I'm the opposite of a Royalist btw. I'm like a Democrat voting for "thoughts and prayers". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pull In the same category as trivia or celebrity news, and it's certainly misleading and inaccurate to portray this as something all commonwealth countries celebrate in any significant way.Abcmaxx (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I share concerns about the wording of the blurb. The "celebrations" are almost exclusively limited to the Commonwealth realms not the larger Commonwealth of Nations. Indeed the celebrations, especially things such as street parties, will be a very British affair. It was only this week the Australian PM appointed a new minister to oversee the country becoming a republic. AusLondonder (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not to send you down a process rabbit-hole, but, please take blurb refinement recommendations to WP:ERRORS. They are handled in a time-judicious manner there. Ktin (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PP weak support It's getting a lot of attention and it doesn't have a body count. The Queen's article is also FA. Realistically the next time she makes it onto this page will be with her passing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U or possibly if she makes it to May 28, 2024 and becomes the longest reigning monarch ever. Black Kite (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a non-breaking space between Elizabeth and II? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Done. Black Kite (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support headline news around the world. Sad that the Depp/Herd trial got shot down as "beneath" ITN -- I half expected to find this one had the same fate. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support definitely one of the top 300 global news stories of the year. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hat

If this is your metric, then you should have supported the blurbing of the mass shootings... --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The most recent mass shooting is just dust now. No-one cares. Kids are dead, no-one did anything, Ted Cruz is telling everyone the solution is more guns, and the mass populace in Amurica believe it all. Fucking stupid beyond belief. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The mass shooting is still headline news, even on the BBC's website, I'm looking at it now. And no, the "mass populace" doesn't believe what Ted Cruz is selling, he's a hack, but that's neither here nor there. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tq If you're talking about Uvalde, you clearly don't know what is happening in that story. Here's some coverage from the past 24 hours.[34][35][36][37] – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You guys. You've had multiple mass shootings since Uvalde. Get a grip. This is a disgusting argument and utterly irrelevant to the Jubilee observations. Legal mass slaughter in Amurica is a way of life. We all know that. The monarch of hundreds of millions of people getting to 70 years? That's unique. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have had multiple mass shootings, and most of those haven't killed anyone, or were related to gang violence. It's the same way that a mass stabbing attack which kills no one won't make the news. And no, mass slaughter is not "legal", stop with the hyperbole. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre, you have children who can't buy a beer yet can buy an AR-15 and slaughter kids. You have "security staff" who just watch it all go on. It's all part of the narrative. Buy more guns, only good guys with guns can stop the bad guys with guns, etc etc. Madness. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't mean it's legal to slaughter kids. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest a suitably competent admin closes this down as it's pretty clear that the Boston Tea Party is looking likely for a revival right now and it's both irrelevant and unseemly to continue this line of bollocks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're the one who brought all of this up. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you brought up blurbing mass shootings mate. Sorry you fucked that one up. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know I can see the comments above, right? Quit lying -- you're the one who mentioned mass shootings in a response to my comment about monarchies being silly. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Lying"?? You know I can read timestamps above, right? I responded in two comments, both at 22:56. Get a grip. And with luck, you'll take some advice and not bother interacting with me again, as it's clear that you and I operate on different levels. Bye now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can read the timestamps too; you brought up mass shootings first, on 22:56, I then responded to your comment in a later message. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:Hab Template:Archive-bottom

RD: Uri Zohar[edit]

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

Oppose on quality Regarding the nom com, Template:Tq. Anywho, there needs to be additional citations regarding the filmography section. (Someone tried to link IMDb as a citation. Yuck.) Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 13:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the IMDB issue. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Something seems off about the formatting. "Biography" is not a standard heading style in biographies. Havradim leaf a message 19:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't need to be, as long as the structure is a readable. Gotitbro (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Filmography still needs to be referenced.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 1[edit]

(Posted) RD: Barry Sussman[edit]

Weak oppose While the article is long enough, there is one Template:Cn tag that is the impostor among the requirements. Otherwise, it's generally issue free. Support I have cleaned up all the sourcing issues, so the article should be READY for RD. Marking as attention needed. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 01:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support short but good enough. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks referenced, good to go.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 23:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Andrée Geulen[edit]

Support good to me. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Tulsa shooting[edit]

Oppose If "no one brought this up" it will be for a reason...another shooting in a country where it's routine and few victims. Please take a look at previous nominations to see what is the usual trend in deciding shootings in the United States. Snow close. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, what does "snow close" mean? BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, WP:SNOW as in "a snowball's chance in hell". On the first vote too. Template:Facepalm – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOWCLOSE, where the outcome of a discussion is largely known and winding discussions are only to prove futile. Gotitbro (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is in the news and the article looks to be in good shape. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And close. The recent shootings were posted because they were exceptional in aspects (racially motivated/inordinate child killing), no such factor is apparent here, the article as of now itself notes "233rd mass shooting in the United States in 2022". ITN is clearly not a newsticker. Gotitbro (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't remember motive being an ITN criteria anywhere. We have a mass shooting that is in the news and we have a good article for it. That it's the 233rd mass shooting in the US in 2022 showcases that this is a significant problem, much more of an important issue than a Depp/Heard trial or whatever else. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those were arguments on which the recent ITN postings were predicated upon, nothing sets this apart from the others which have not been posted. Gotitbro (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but it sounds like you're now trying to use ITN as a way to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and that's totally not what this part of the main page is all about. We're not going to post each and every mass shooting in the United States in an attempt to make someone/anyone/the NRA/the GOP/Biden pay attention. No-one there does pay attention, but in any case, this is an encyclopedia. To even dare imagine than a mass shooting in the US with just five victims would be considered newsworthy is patently absurd. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Biden hates guns (at least by USA standards) but presidents aren't absolute monarchs (shudder), they can't pass laws without over half of the 435 equal population "MP's" AND 60% of the 100 state-sized districts' "MP's" agreeing (33 states elected theirs in 2020, 33 in 2018 & 34 in 2016, this makes getting 60 on anything harder cause extreme swings like Obama's coattails 2008 and Trump 2016 never repeat and in fact often reverse, Obama and Trump would've been worse off if all 100 senators were elected in 2010 and 2018 instead of just 1/3rd of them). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mass shootings are a daily occurrence in the US and this one is nothing special, since there have been more than 200 mass shootings this year alone. I'd suggest we stop nominating these trivial events. If we need to highlight a problem in the US (and that's not what English language Wikipedia is here to do) put "mass shootings in the US" in ongoing. (PS we didn't post the ultra-trivial Depp/Heard shit either). The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I should have pointed out that this is way more important than the jubilee. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you should have pointed out this is way more common than the Jubilee. Five people being killed in a mass shooting in America? That's any day ending with -day, right? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a good idea. But first, this discussion has to be closed. Let's wait to do that. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and yes. Snow close.--WaltCip-(talk) 23:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- this doesn't rise to the level of ITN. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shooter revealed this was a revenge of sorts at a surgeon that he claims gave him long-term pain issues. [38] Eg akin to a disgruntled worker and doesn't rise to the level of race-related or school shootings. --Masem (t) 01:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Gerard Brennan[edit]

~~The Chinese name part needs to be cited or removed. After that, we're good to go. Cheers!~~ Support Article is well cited, long enough, and generally issue free. Fake scientist 8000 11:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fakescientist8000, commented out, since I couldn't find a source. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think he has a sufficiently interesting career to have such a short biography...I think it could be expanded more. There are some tags to fix, yet. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alsoriano97, at 2500 characters of prose, it's well over the 1500-character standard often used at DYK. I wish it were longer, too, but this is ITN, not GAN/FAC. On tags, there was only one ill-placed clarify tag, which I removed. Please remember the salient question: not, "Is it as good as it can be?" but rather, "Is it in decent enough shape that we can present it widely to readers without embarrassing ourselves?" If the answer to the latter question is yes, we should get it up while it's still timely. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is clear is that you still do not respectfully assume constructive opinions. But beyond that, don't you think the article should talk about what he did as a High Court justice or even as Chief Justice? At least briefly? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to expand on the information about his term as High Court justice/Chief Justice already present in the article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that, since you are the nominator, there is no better person to do so. ;) _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Immediately after "Early life and education", we jump to "After retirement"? Where is the "Career" section? That's three decades of his life, often in prominent positions. These things establish notability and should not be missing from anyone's biography. Please fill this glaring gap (e.g. his legal training? what he did as a lawyer before becoming a judge? his appointment to the High Court and subsequently becoming Chief Justice? Perhaps a line of two about the Mabo case? Don't forget that he was also president of two Bar Associations and the founding president of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal before he "retired"... What a career!) --PFHLai (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Danish EU Opt out Referendum[edit]

I updated the results table now, full results are in article. 4iamking (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality this is the kind of news that is ITN-worthy because of its real impact in many aspects. This is a serious place. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support On par with a national election in importance This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Important referendum, Template:S Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 04:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC); Edited 17:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmn, no. The UK ending it's opt out on the social chapter came first. 3142 (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, corrected. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article could use some more work, particularly a reactions/aftermatch section. In addition, we don't just include all national referendums here, and I don't think the referendum is of such worldwide importance that it ought to be included. Gust Justice (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is just a change in the position of a member state regarding the participation in one particular policy area with no immediate implications. If the country had an opt-out that was abolished for the first time is only symbolic and the method of direct democracy doesn’t really give any additional weight here. The opt-out they had didn’t veto the implementation of policies in that area, so this is really a marginal change by a relatively small member state. I’d have perhaps considered supporting had Denmark abolished its opt-out regarding membership in the Eurozone and subsequently announced adoption of the euro.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a fairly significant development especially given Denmark's history of euroscepticism and another consequence of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I would argue that a nationwide referendum would almost always be of ITN significance. AusLondonder (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Needs some prose in the results/reactions section, otherwise this is an ITN story. --Tone 11:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... in principle, pending article development. Widely covered as a foreign policy sea-change occasioned by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose doesn't seem that significant in the grand scheme of things. — Amakuru (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I had a read-through of the article and it looks to be in postable shape. The results and reactions sections look to be fleshed out, everything seems to be well-sourced and it's certainly noteworthy. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is in good shape and it's unquestionably ITN-worthy. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is this really in the news? I stay pretty well informed, and the only mention I've seen of this is in this thread. Looking at this week's (June 4) and last week's Economist there is no mention of this - even in the summary of various issues in the front section. Looking at the references in the articles, they all appear to be Danish, except for a Tweet from Emmanuel Macron. This seems to be a very local issue. Nfitz (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian, the ABC, CNN, and the BBC all covered this, as did many overs. BilledMammal (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that the BBC article being 7 years old, say a lot. That said - media coverage of something doesn't make it ITN. There's been similar media coverage of numerous Swiss or California referendums over the years. The way the other articles are written, it looks to be more part of the ongoing Ukraine fallout than anything else. Nfitz (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really comparing the referendums in Switzerland and California with the one held in Denmark, whereby a country, historically less subject to EU law, becomes subject to EU defense and security policies? Lol. And the fact that some news are not widely covered doesn't make them non-ITNR (look at the finals of sports competitions that are ITNR, for example). _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or the entry into operation of the Elizabeth line whose nomination you supported... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most Swiss/California referendums concern local laws and happen with way greater frequency, a referendum on a local tax or budgetary issue is going to be way less significant than one that concerns the exercising of provisions in international treaties. 4iamking (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Significant event that affects the entire EU, and a significant change of policy for Denmark. In addition, the result is unusual - Denmark usually votes no in EU referendums. BilledMammal (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So...? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 14:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Depp v. Heard verdict[edit]

Nope, absolutely not. We are not a tabloid magazine. This has little impact on the world. (Remember, this was a defamation trial, NOT a domestic abuse trial.) Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 19:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its on the front page of the New York Times so is not Tabloid fodder. Aircorn (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no way. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
strongest possible oppose this is nothing more than tabloidy gossip glorifying bad and abusive behavior in relationships and hardly relevant to an encyclopedia despite social media interest. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Celeb gossip does not belong on the main page at all. --Masem (t) 19:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vehement oppose Absolutely not. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 20:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Re-opened. We post all manner of sports competitions and disasters of dubious long term notability. There are some facts: our WP:READERS are interested in entertainment, a massive world-wide industry. This story is in the news, and has been for some time, making headlines around the world (albeit that is not a requirement). The article is detailed with more prose than the four items currently in the box combined. Lastly, this isn't some simple gossip column, it's a libel case against content published in the press where libel cases are traditionally hard to make. I know this is going to go down in flames but seriously, this is getting more coverage than anything else currently in the box and everyone who opposes this knows that to be true whether the like it or not. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If any of the opposes thinks the story lacks encyclopedic value, then I suggest WP:AFD and if you're not willing to put in the effort I'd suggest your oppose is without merit. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tq Then there's no point in reopening it - you're just wasting everyone's time.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stories can be of encyclopedic value dye to broad coverage, but at the same time, utterly fail for they type of stories that ITN is meant for. The legal tribulations of formerly married people is definitely of this sort. --Masem (t) 20:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per LaserLegs. 2A00:23C7:3D09:6001:2C41:F38E:27F5:DD2B (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per LaserLegs, and I'd like to express my bemusement at this nomination being originally closed after just 16 minutes. 49 TL 20:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm striking ALT0 and proposing ALT1, because Depp was also found liable for one count of libel, and though he "won" in terms of getting more money, it's not a pure vindication for him. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very notable and high profile case. --TheDutchViewer (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality The article goes into an excessively detailed day-by-day (almost proseline), witness-by-witness rehashing of the trial. The trial itself should be summarized. The article also does not go into enough discussion of the ramifications of this case for libel law and free speech issues more broadly. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was just skimming through the article myself... and my god is it long and overly detailed. And what are the larger ramifications? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose little relevant, encyclopedic, worldwide, case. Two people suing each other in a defamation case is hardly a worldwide event. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 20:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous. WaltCip-(talk) 21:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly strong oppose. The article is a mess, and as far as relevance, this trial is of interest only to a particular (primarily American) audience who has been following it and probably already knows the verdict. Others do not care or are actively trying to avoid the case. — Ghost River 21:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality alone per Template:Noping. Way, way, way too much detail. Article needs work before being on the front page. —Sirdog (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I know this is very polarizing, it disheartens me to see so many editors providing a vote without presenting rationale that comments as to why (particularly in relation to article quality or notability). I'd like to encourage anyone reading this comment to do so, regardless of the vote. —Sirdog (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Unless the case fundamentally changed how defamation is handled in the United States, there's nothing significant about two overpampered celebrities slinging mud against each other in court. ~~And it's not just because I'm so annoyed at how social media algorithms kept shoving this "story" in my face for the past couple of weeks.~~ Mount Patagonia (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible oppose tripe, baloney, codswallop Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Codswallop! Thanks for teaching me a new word! PRAXIDICAE💕 21:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Support per LaserLegs. This is ITN, even if we want to pretend it's beneath ITN's dignity. Also, this is not primarily an American story; it's one of those few celebrity dramas that have an international angle: Heard was first found not liable in the UK. This also has another interesting angle: proving defamation is an extremely high bar in the US, much higher than in the UK: that defamation was proven in the US and not in the UK provides an interesting and unique legal angle. It is not just a celebrity drama. Finally, it appears as the headline news in the BBC. For all of these reasons, I strongly support this being posted ITN. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, "strongest possible support" = support. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 21:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and "strongest possible oppose" = oppose. Template:Smiley -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't it clear from my previous statement that that applies too? Template:Ok Template:Smiley Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 22:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN is purposely not a.newdticker, hence why we care little about stories dominate headlines, and consider articles of broader relevance. Masem (t) 22:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible support This is ITN. The page in question has been running at over 50,000 page views per day. Odds on that it will make the top 25 report this week. This is what our readers are interested in. I disagree that the case has no broader significance in the #MeToo era. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
our readers have the tabloids to read this kind of news. This place is an encyclopedia. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - quality of article isn't suitable. Item goes into ridiculous depths. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose two shitty people being shitty with other and being found guilty of variously being shitty with each other is not something I'd expect an encyclopedia to promote on its main page. Grow up. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The world's first real-life soap series has ended, there are no plans for a sequel. Count Iblis (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We've Heard that before. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is neither a celebrity gossip magazine or even an ordinary newspaper. Even setting that aside, article also needs severe reworking as way too much of it is dedicated to a WP:INDISCRIMINATE recollection of events. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've done some entirely non-precision cutting ([39]), which needed to be done anyways. Doesn't address the this-is-not-what-Wikipedia-is issue, but at least removes most of the cruft. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tabloid, celebrity trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Terrible article which goes into mind-numbing levels of detail about an ultimately trivial story. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Rockstone. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and reclose. This is not the sort of story which rises to ITN importance, and there's also clearly no chance of it being posted, so time to put it out of its misery. — Amakuru (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose and Reclose A defamation case between two people of very little influence is gossip stuff and nothing else. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality alone. While most of the other opposes are without merit the article contains too much excessive detail. Also don't reclose yet. Aircorn (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not the place to post a celebrity trial with no real long term importance. Thriley (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tabloid ITN is not. Depp is a well known actor, he has not been featured on ITN so far and if it was to be so it definitely shouldn't be about personal issues. Gotitbro (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only instances where personal issues, IMO, rise to an ITN item would be of heads of countries/others which have an impact beyond themselves. The merit here (as some have pointed out) might have been in the defamation aspect of the case itself but news media is not highlighting that and this is clearly not a landmark case. Lasttly, what readers are "interested" in at the moment can be gauged from WP:TOP25 but that is neither here nor there and not what ITN is for, if so we can do away the ITN noms and replace them with the TOP25 itself. Gotitbro (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is celebrity tittle-tattle, nothing more. Than doesn't mean it isn't of interest to a portion of the readership but there is an apparent contradiction with the earlier UK case. ITN is not the place to even attempt to resolve an issue such as that. 3142 (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per reasons above. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]