Wikipedia : In the news/Candidates/July 2022

This wikibio is long enough to qualify (500+ words of prose), has footnotes at expected spots, with no obvious formatting issues. And Earwig did not find any problems. This is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Larry Storch[edit]

Oppose Regrettably. Article needs a lot of ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple footnote-free paragraphs in the prose. Filmography section is unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(RD Posted) RD/Blurb: Luis Echeverría[edit]

Comment what a day! ~~I'm adding new cn tags. Article far from ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Template:Ping Fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality Article needs A LOT of ref work before debate can begin. I'll try fixing it, but might need some help. Once issues have been addressed, I can support a blurb. Support blurb Article in good state. He was president during a controversial period in Mexico, accused of war crimes and nearly charged for genocide. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Blurb, support RD - We don't blurb every head of state, and ought not to normalise that, that would turn ITN into an obituary wall.... If the blurb only reads «Former (insert political position) (insert politician name) dies at the age of (insert age).» the blurb isn't adding anything that a RD doesn't already do. 🌈 4🧚‍♂am KING 👑 03:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Blurb As 4 suggests, there's no story here beyond recency. And as both provided obits say, his presidency went mostly poorly. This idea that every head of state should be considered the Gretzky of their field is absurd, as is giving any BDP crime cred for "nearly" getting charged with something. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb standard third world autocrat, no notable achievements; killing dissidents in authoritarian countries is par for the course and lasting only 6 years is not much for an autocrat. Achieving 6% annual growth is also standard for a developing country. This is no S Korea etc with 12+ % growth Bumbubookworm (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD on quality I don't think he is one of the most remarkable president of Mexico. And although there are people who think that the intention here is to nominate all former heads of state or government, they are wrong. Mexico is not a minor country. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If "there are people" refers to me, "this idea" refers to Template:U's hard-to-misinterpret declaration of intent: Template:Tq He wrote it in the context of a bigger fish in a smaller pond, but I'm reasonably sure he meant it should apply to the wider "here". I'll let him explain why he hasn't supported blurbing this death here yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I got it better. It will be interesting to see what he thinks in this cas, then. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If he's wrong, I won't be the one to tell him; my disgusted resignation from "this place" over the Spanish-Angolan affair is effective immediately. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish-Angolan...what? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RD Posted. Please feel free to continue discussion on blurbing. --PFHLai (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Being a former head of state should not be a free pass to a blurb, which is for rare cases, and I don't see his six years in office as reaching a high enough bar to post.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting RD support: Death has finally decided to take in Echeverría, as the country's oldest living former head of state -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 13:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tony Sirico[edit]

Oppose Whatta ya hear? Whatta ya say? RIP. Filmography is not quite there yet but it's closer than most. Support Referencing issues are largely fixed now. Kafoxe (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very notable, covered extensively by sources. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 07:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very notable. No issues with the article.Prodrummer619 (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not Ready Some gaps in referencing especially in the tables. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tables are now done. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Article looks good, although I do feel the lead can be beefed up a bit. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now adequate following improved referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article is in good shape.--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Musk cancels Twitter purchase[edit]

Oppose it never happened. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Counterpoint: it wasn't wrong to post it at the time, because it was a story in the news with a decent quality article to showcase. The same is true now. Just because the company isn't changing hands (or may not be, since we don't know the outcome of the coming court battle) doesn't mean it's not newsworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In the end, nothing happened and I don't think it's necessary to give this matter so much thought. A millionaire doing millionaires' things. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is just as newsworthy as the original announcement which we did post. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We're not a Musk ticker, and as The Rambling Man points out, it never happened. This is also evidence for why we shouldn't post company acquisitions until the acquisition actually happens. BilledMammal (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We probably should not have run the story initially. This is going to be a messy thing that may go on and on. Let's be more wary next time. Thriley (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posting at the time was fine, the media was at fever pitch over it. The reaction this time is more muted, let it go. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and honestly a perfect example why I feel like the shouldn't have run this in the first place, its better to post these kind of things when the deal closes. 🌈 4🧚‍♂am KING 👑 03:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support We've posted him purchasing it, we've oughtta post him cancelling it too now. 5.44.170.26 (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it is the headline story now (just like the initial purchase). This is a followup, it should be posted. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Given that the deal did not happen. There is also a chance that this is a bargaining tactic and the status of the deal may change again. Carter00000 (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TheRambilingMan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:681:25A0:0:0:0:9419 (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The NYT says "Buyers have frequently used the threat of walking away to renegotiate a deal. At the height of the pandemic, LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton sued to back out of its acquisition of Tiffany & Company. The two parties later shaved about $420 million off the price." So, as this may be similar haggling which still results in a purchase, we should let the process complete rather than jumping to conclusions. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rambling man, BilledMammal et al. Polyamorph (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support we shouldn't just be an Elon Musk ticker, but this story is in the news prominently, just like it was when we posted he was going to buy Twitter. Something this big not happening after being pretty sure it was going to happen is important news. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because nothing changes and we should re-evaluate how we post announcements of proposed acquisitions in the future. Part of me feels like WP (along with the rest of the media) got baited into giving Musk some free PR. YD407OTZ (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't the end of the matter. If he un-cancels, are we going to post that too? 49 TL 11:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's going to be a years long legal fight between the two sides; I can't imagine us having to post another blurb anytime soon. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They said it was going to rain yesterday and it didn't. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Gregory Itzin[edit]

Oppose Article needs ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple footnote-free paragraphs in the prose. Filmography section is unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lenny Von Dohlen[edit]

Only noting while he died on the 5th, sources are only reporting on it widely now, so this date seems proper. --Masem (t) 17:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support article looks good. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Blurb posted) RD/Blurb: José Eduardo dos Santos[edit]

Comment I'm inclined to support the blurb for the reasons you state: the second longest president in Africa, ended a civil war that lasted almost 30 years and practically built a nation that became independent just a few years before taking office. But for now I don't think it meets the qualitative requirements: unsourced paragraphs and lines, and I think the section on his long tenure could be expanded much further. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Fixed the issues. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TDKR Chicago 101 you did a great job! I haven't read it in depth, but if you have, do you think the content is sufficient? I'm not very convinced... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hold - I suggest holding it for now due to the recent Abe assassination. Even without the assassination, the article seems to be lead-heavy, without significant amount of content afterwards. Cheers, :PenangLion (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't hold items just because another item exists- that isn't ITN policy. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality needs more sources in the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Fixed the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose blurb, Support RD when ready Needs a lot of sourcing, particularly the awards section. Nothing really blurb worthy, he died of old age. 🌈 4🧚‍♂am KING 👑 17:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb This is a clear-cut case. He spent 38 years in office as a president of a country where the title unifies the head of state and head of government, ended a 26-year long civil war and implemented significant economic reforms.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If he really ended the war, his bio should say so. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb when ready A country's long-serving former leader, who led the country through a long war that received extensive international attention, who is clearly transformative enough in that country's history to blurb his death. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Fixed the issues. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb I've fixed the citations issues, article looks good now. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
not really, the lead is still mostly uncited. 🌈 4🧚‍♂am KING 👑 20:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Usually leads don't need to be cited if the info covered in the lead is mentioned throughout the article and then in turn that info is cited. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did add citations to the cn tags you've added in the lead. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb old man dies. The past head-of-whatever we've blurbed are mistakes lets not do that again --LaserLegs (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So when Jimmy Carter passes he shouldn't get a blurb because he's old? Wouldn't that same logic go to Elizabeth II? Just because they're old and its been years since they've left office, it doesn't diminish the impact/legacy they left in their respective countries. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No we should not blurb Carter, or Clinton, or Chrétien, or Harper, or Mulroney, or John Howard or Gordon Brown. We should not have blurbed Bush Sr. We should blurb Jr, (we should have blurbed Rumsfeld). When the time comes we should do BoJo. Elizabeth II will have a media circus that lasts for days which frankly is the guidelines we should be using for all the blurb considerations since the only difference between a blurb and RD is that blurbs kick some other story out of the box. Old man dies, is there something more that needs to be said? Some critical piece of information about his death like Shinzo Abe? And what the hell does Jimmy Carter have to do with anything Christ I picked three other countries whose former leaders I knew the name of (also no blurb for Gerhard Schröder making it four) but you went straight for an American president huh? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth has been head of state for 70 years and is almost certain to die in the role, so I'm not why you're trying to apply that "logic" to her. Weird. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hat

Well, I'm afraid he would support it.... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you can read my mind and predict the future? I was in the process of explaining the above when I EC because you were busy slandering me. Go ahead and apologize. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact that's WP:ABF to the point of being a WP:NPA vio so I'm just gonna take it over to WP:ANI --LaserLegs (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm...okey. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or just apologize for making assumptions about me and we can drop it and move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the comment is not offensive, nor is it necessary to over exaggerate, intimidate or threaten. But as I will not give more thought to this trifle, my apologies. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

Oppose Blurb exactly what RD is for. The passing of people notable enough to have their own article, but not so notable and transformational that we will have an article like Death of José Eduardo dos Santos. 2A02:908:675:8D00:8066:96F5:506E:12C4 (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
in fact he was "transforming" for Angola. But okay. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no requirement for a separate "death of" for meeting a blurb. Masem (t) 23:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious support blurb. He was a major transformative figure in both his own country and the region (including Congo wars and suchlike), and the sort of figure we routinely blurb. Looks like the quality issues are resolved too unless there's anything else? — Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blurbs for recent deaths, even major figures, are supposed to be rare and never routine. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb an aforementioned yank prez serves 8 years, and then user compares it to QEII who has served 70. This is no comparison. Seriously, SERIOUSLY get a GRIP. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What a terrible argument. The Queen has been Queen for 70 years simply because she happened to be born to someone who was royalty. George W. Bush, in contrast, was elected to his position, twice. But that doesn't matter, all former heads of states who pass away should be blurbed, in my opinion. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we did that, we would be blurbing them on a weekly basis.... ITN/RD guidelines specifically state that if a person is more known for what they did in life then it's better to put it as a RD link. Also news of his death is pretty burried in today's headlines with everything else going on. 🌈 4🧚‍♂am KING 👑 04:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb -- I will support blurbing the death of all former heads of state or heads of government. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Longtime leader during a transformative period for both his country and Africa as a whole. The Kip (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No Blurb An old unpopular man known for staying low-key while his people suffer dies privately of nothing in particular in a fancy foreign hospital and that supplants a filmed assassination with a bizarre newfangled weapon for still unfolding reasons because they were both nominal national leaders? If so, I resign in disgust. If not, we part amicably! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this is exactly how the ITN doesn't work. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from your opening comment, misattributing three farfetched statements to the nominator, I doubt you understand my reasons, either. But whatever. You lean your way and I'll stand by mine. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
when I talk about what the nominator says I clearly mean "longest serving president of an African country" ("second longest serving president in Africa"), but okay. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By calling that one factual description "reasons", then adding two of your own assumptions after a colon, you sure had me fooled. Oh well. Shame on me! InedibleHulk (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality The article does not explain what impact he has. It has one short paragraph about economy and once sentence that he allowed foreign investment. Otherwise it is just a bunch of stuff about not having elections and corruption. Not sure how he is transformative then unless he we are considering him as a successful looter. There is basically nothing on his policies Bumbubookworm (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this is kinda how I feel too... Being a corrupt long term dictator doesn't sound sound particularly transformative. He ain't no Nelson Mandela for his country. 🌈 4🧚‍♂am KING 👑 09:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t post blurbs only for democratic leaders. Mugabe got one for spending 30 years as an authoritarian president of Zimbabwe. So, why should a former president of Angola, a country comparable in size to Zimbabwe with a much larger economy, who spent more years in office and ended a civil war not get one? I sincerely hope the reason isn’t an English-centric bias because Zimbabwe is an English-speaking country and a former British colony.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only reasons we post blurbs for people whose death itself is not a media event are peer pressure, show of respect or acknowledgment of the reported best in a business. Honoring Mugabe was disgusting. This doesn't have to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bias at least I don't want there to be one. But we also didn't blurb leaders like Leonid Kravchuk or Stanislav Shushkevich who led their countries independence as well precisely because they didn't do much as leader themselves aside from lead independence. Mugabe pushed through a lot of economic reforms in his country (among other controversial policies) that he is well famous for. If we go by the same standard, what did this guy do other than make peace with some rebels, cling on to power, and syphon money from his country? 🌈 4🧚‍♂am KING 👑 10:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This guy implemented more important economic reforms than Mugabe, which made Angola one of the leading oil-producing countries in Africa and secured long-term economic development through a free-market liberal economy, and this is well documented in the article. Have you read the article at all?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He did not make peace with any rebels. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair Stanislav Shushkevich's article was not in good quality (ref work) to even be posted. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Our criteria says major figures are blurbed in rare cases. This for me is not one of those. In general I do not support blurbs of "life as the main story" world leaders as RD is sufficient. Of course a dictator who clung onto power for a long time did a lot of things to the country, but it is not blurb-worthy in my opinion. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RD posted No consensus for blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting blurb support now that the article meets the basic quality requirements. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Template:Ping Could you please explain how there's no consensus for a blurb here? Most of the oppose votes come from people who have apparently not read the article to get familiar with the person's legacy and use ill-founded arguments that the person was authoritarian and corrupt (not to mention that the opposition is a clear minority per WP:NOTVOTE). You may want to re-consider your decision. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not really helpful to make sweeping statements about those who did not agree with you. 2A02:908:675:8D00:40B2:2704:9CF8:457A (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. In assessing the !votes, it's not my place to interpret the article or research his legacy. I'm not !voting, I'm determining consensus of the !voters, and they don't seem to be nefarious to compel me to !vote myself. ITN discussions are a bit more wide open than say XfDs, where consensus is weighed against existing guidelines. WP:ITN itself says: Template:Tq2 While there was a narrow majority to post a blurb, it was not strong enough for me to post the blurb. Regards—Bagumba (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Reply If it's not your place to interpret the article or research his legacy, you won't be able to evaluate the arguments made in the discussion, so it's better to refrain from making decisions based on superficial examination of the matter.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be telling me to WP:SUPERVOTE or otherwise to excuse myself. No. But the discussion has not been capped, and another admin might have a different opinion. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment – RD appropriate, but the subject doesn't seem quite 'transformative' despite his lengthy (and controversial) career. – Sca (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that the tired refrain of "old man dies" was sufficient to tip the balance away from posting a blurb, given the immense legacy of this particular world leader.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb honestly, if we're posting a blurb for a death, the news at least has to be talking about the person that died. I have seen no coverage of Santos' death on any news websites, so the only criteria is whether their life was transformative enough for a blurb, which I don't think this qualifies for. AryKun (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've apparently missed this excellent obituary published by the BBC in which you can find exactly what you state that you've not seen.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(CNN) (Reuters) (Time) (Washington Post) (Bloomberg) (The New York Times) (BBC) You're welcome. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And none of those are front page news, or anywhere close to front page news, which is what I would expect for a death blurb. Obviously they cover the fact that he died, that's their job. But they clearly do not think BBC has an obituary for Tony Sirico more prominently featured than Santos'. Reuters puts both Sirico and Luis Echeverria ahead of Santos. A death blurb is not a some way to gauge how much an impact someone had while living, that's what RD is for. ITN blurbs is only for deaths that are actually in the news, like Shinzo Abe's is. AryKun (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a discussion to determine whether Santos was more notable than Sirico or Echeverria. Those two should be discussed separately from this one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for death blurbs to be front page news (or for any news topic). Masem (t) 17:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb He wasn't just HoS for a long time; he lead his country for most of its history. The changes in Angola were massive in this time, and he was a key party to all of them. The burden of proof here is clearly on the opposition, and they do not appear to be presenting any argument at all. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. The norm is to put a recent death in the RD section, which is what I think should happen here. The burden is on supporters to say why we should make an exception here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is transformative, then the article should clearly elucidate what their impact was, or what their technical innovations were etc. If there is no clear argument in the article then either subject is not transformative, or the article does not cover the key points. No clear elucidation of his impact is given at all Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's inconceivable someone could have read this article and come away with that impression that he was not transformative. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb per Great Caesar's Ghost. He was president for nearly all of the country's independent history, going from the Cold War to economic liberalisation, and was also notable for intervention in Zaire/DRC. Debates on which of the lesser UK/US/Canada etc leaders deserve blurbs can wait for another day. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb—The most significant political figure in Angolan history, for better or for worse. Angola is a large nation straddling the southern and central regions of the African continent, with a population of around 33 million people. I feel that Dos Santos easily merits a blurb. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb He was the country's president for nearly 40 consecutive years. There's no shot that we'd be debating blurbing a head of state or government who served that long in a more well-known country. For what it's worth, it seems that the supports here vastly outweigh the opposes, but it is still a bit disappointing to see all the dismissive and unconstructive comments along the lines of "just an old man who died" Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is the hook of the blurb. No cause, no consequences, no celebrated deeds or term length. Purely his age. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe we need to find a different blurb that doesn't just read "old man dies"? If we are going to death blurb someone, I feel like the blurb at least needs to explain what about the death was significant. 🌈 4🧚‍♂am KING 👑 03:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Add something like "President of Angola from 1979 to 2017 and MPLA leader during the Angolan Civil War" to the blurb? This extra clause at least brings up both his long rule and the main event that incurred his transformativeness. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tried writing an altblurb myself. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It explains nothing about why his recent death matters, but says more about his life, so kudos. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Is there a way to post this blurb already? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Blurb posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Wording suggestion, I’d change “Angola’s former President” to “Former President of Angola.” The Kip (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  "President" would not be capitalized per MOS:JOBTITLES. As readers have a general idea of what a president is, it might be a case of MOS:OVERLINK for the blurb (as well as MOS:SEAOFBLUE, though dos Santos' link would be contrasted in bold). —Bagumba (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Shinzo Abe Assassination[edit]

Wait, what? Is there an update in a wiki article yet? I didn't see one. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know I was shocked too, but a quick google search does confirm this. He also collapsed too! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks good, plus an assassination attempt on an ex-G7 leader and one of Japan's longest serving PMs is pretty blurbworthy. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait It has been twenty minutes since this happened. Information is going to be changing constantly. Good lord. Mlb96 (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until his condition is determined and announced; if the worst comes to the worst, then, pre-emptive support. Sceptre (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for now should be obvious. Sources are still hedging about what happened exactly. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: The situation is rapidly changing, so it is unclear if this is an attempted or successful assassination. One that is cleared up, it needs to be given a blurb. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A separate article (Shooting of Shinzo Abe) has been created and will be worked on over the next few hours. Sounder Bruce 03:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait News broke less than half an hour ago. Too much information not available yet. AkiraRorschach (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The update's insufficient at four short sentences. Shooting of Shinzo Abe is even worse at two. —Cryptic 03:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for now, the news is still breaking and the article is under development. Absolutely shocking though, I'm inclined to support posting on notability (regardless of his outcome) once we have a quality article about it. Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support on notability too, but we need to sit tight for now and wait for a proper update. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible support when quality is ready irrespective of PM Abe's outcome Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Need more confirmation on his ultimate condition, but it should absolutely be posted when that clarification comes. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Big event. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 03:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support An attack on a world leader is notable, breaking news and imminently important for coverage. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 03:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Be prepared to change the blurb, as a few Japanese news agencies are stating that he has not vital signs or that he is possibly dead. The BBC and the Agence France-Presse have also questioned if he is still alive. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the assumption that the article is expanded and we know more about Abe's condition. Gust Justice (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle but wait until more details arrive; the attempt article is a stub right now, and given they have the suspected shooter in custody, its expected that we should know more soon. --Masem (t) 03:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait but this is almost certainly going to become a support once we have some more details and especially if he dies. This is really quite shocking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but Wait even if he survives this is massive news. By the looks of it, the hook will have to change, unfortunately. Juxlos (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as is as this is fairly big news in and of itself, whether Abe dies or not. He is a former PM and was wounded by an attempted assassin. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Updated blurb to reflect that he has died.🌈 4🧚‍♂am KING 👑 04:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that tweet is a fake BBC impersonation Twitter account. Juxlos (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Its a fake account and not confirmed yet. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yeah its early, jumped the gun a bit...🌈 4🧚‍♂am KING 👑 04:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "prime minister" should be lowercase, I believe. Loqiical (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the assassination of a former G7 leader is unprecedented. Article on him is good; doesn't need more than a line about the shooting. Nfitz (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support posting this soon seeing how Abe being shot alone is blurbworthy. The blurb can be updated should anything develop such as (hopefully not) it becoming an assassination. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- even if he survives, an attempted assassination of a former head of government surely merits a blurb. This is horrible. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We can fix the blurb later if he dies, but that he's been shot is enough to post. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - Very recent, but can be updated. CLYDE (TALK) @PING ME! 05:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support yeah irrespective of outcome this should be there. Very unusual event etc. DemonDays64 (talk•contribs) 05:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support As an assassination attempt on a very influential politician I think this certainly qualifies as world news. Duonaut^{(talk | contribs)} 05:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb - An assassination attempt on a globally known politician, successful or not, is major world news. PolarManne (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - i am absolutely stunned by this. I remember when the Osaka mayor was shot and thought that was impossible, now this. In Nara-ken no less. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean the Nagasaki mayor? Afaik, an Osaka mayor hasn't been shot. Curbon7 (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed! That while I lived there 15 years ago and the Sasebo slashing when I was on homestay in Higashi-Osaka. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but wait given that the survival rate for cardiopulmonary arrest is less than 10%, there's a significant chance the ITN blurb will need to be reworded soon, unfortunately. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted -- KTC (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support This is so sad and I pray he recovers. All my love to Japan. -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support Shooting is already notable and horrific. Clearly warrants a death blurb if it comes to it. Abe is a globally well-known politician, this will irreparably change politics in Japan. (Also, he is not only a former long-serving prime minister but also still a current member of the legislature.) Davey2116 (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update Japanese news is now reporting that Abe has died. The blurb should be altered to reflect this. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to NHK, he has died. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 08:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BBC live ticker is reporting his death too (0951 UK time). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is ABC News saying much the same.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Template:U has updated the blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post posting support Absolutely horrific. Article is good, subject is notable, end of story. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 11:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hat

Post-Posting proposed (non-error) blurb change(s)[edit]

Suggested blurb change: Change 'a speech' to 'an election speech'(and perhaps wikilink 'election' to the Japanese election article, next Sunday's 2022 Japanese House of Councillors election). The point is that an attack on an election speech is an especially strong attack on the fundamentals of Japanese democracy, as the current PM has said, and indeed on every country's democracy. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the discussion at WP:ERRORS and make any suggestions there. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 09:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry,there is currently no discussion about this at WP:ERRORS (nor should there be,as it's not an error, so the discussion belongs here). But on second thoughts,maybe for accuracy that should be (the unfortunately longer) 'a speech during the elections', per PM Kishida's words: ""This attack is an act of brutality that happened during the elections - the very foundation of our democracy - and is absolutely unforgivable." (found here).Tlhslobus (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant election is next Sunday's 2022 Japanese House of Councillors election; he was speaking in support of the re-election of a local member of the Upper House, Councillor Kei Satō. So "an election speech" seems correct (and once again here seems the appropriate forum,as the omission is not an error). Tlhslobus (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed change would also give our readers useful context.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is understandable that WP:ERRORS has been recommended as a forum for this, as the proposed change has very little visibility here, and would have more visibility there (but would always be at risk of deletion there as 'not an error', as I have experienced in the past). We probably really need a separate section for Requested non-error blurb changes, but this is not the right forum for that discussion. On the other hand visibility here can probably be improved by moving this into a new subsection, which I will now do. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ERRORS is typically used for even non-error-type fixes to blurbs. As long you aren't requesting a completely different blurb, then there is fine. --Masem (t) 11:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nuance of "speech" vs. "election speech" isn't readily transferred in a blurb, and needs the details to be in the body of the article, where there currently isn't much either. For reference, in headlines that refer to the speech, The New York Times has "Live Updates: Shinzo Abe, 67, Dies After Being Shot During Speech" and BBC has "Japan's ex-leader Shinzo Abe assassinated while giving speech".—Bagumba (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Post-posting support – Good work on another story that overwhelmingly dominates the news. [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] – Sca (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive bottom

July 7[edit]

(Posted) RD: Rod Zaine[edit]

~~Weak oppose~~ There's a significant gap between him retiring from the Cougars and moving into a retirement home, other than a vague reference to co-owning the team. Is there any more that can be said? Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, I'll support now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please verify and confirm stats table for the 1962–63 season. The data in the table do not seem to be supported by either of the sources as footnoted at the end of the stats table. Nor is this season mentioned in the prose of this wikibio. Perhaps that row should not be there? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re removed the 1962–63 row. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was easy.... And I thought he might be on roster but did not play... Never mind. --PFHLai (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: George Elder[edit]

This wikibio is long enough to qualify (500+ words of prose), with footnotes at expected spots, and no concerns with it formatting, and Earwig found no problems. This is READY for RD. While he was "the oldest living former major league baseball player", the point about "One of four remaining living players for the St. Louis Browns" is not in the wikibio. Need to add a new sentence with a new footnote maybe? --PFHLai (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Done. The statement was also found in the St. Louis Browns article, but to be sure I added it into the wikibio. Marking as ready. Cheers. Wime Pocy 14:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding. I have moved that out of the intro and added it to the main prose with a footnote. --PFHLai (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted—Bagumba (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Norasharee Gous[edit]

Oppose Some ref work is needed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article is at AFD, we cannot post it until the AFD is concluded. And likely by that time, it will be stale (over 7 days old). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Kalwant Singh[edit]

Weak oppose Some minor ref work is needed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article is at AFD, we cannot post it until the AFD is concluded. And likely by that time, it will be stale (over 7 days old). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jim Van Pelt[edit]

Support - It's ready.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Australian floods[edit]

Oppose is not a disaster worthy of ITNR, as recent floods in other countries have been much worse. These have resulted in one death and not because it affected Australia it has more notability. No blurb has been specified, by the way. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slight oppose - third in a year following the Brisbane floods, too. Not ITN worthy. Anarchyte (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not major news given that flooding is common there and minimal casualities. --Masem (t) 12:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Given the common nature of floods around the world and the lack of notability for this case compared to other floods. Carter00000 (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, This flood for that area is not notable for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looking at Template:Tl, there's been a number of notable floods in Australia in the last few years, all significantly more damaging than this one. This one doesn't have significant, ITN-worthy coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After one full day and all opposed, still it is not speedy closed? --LaserLegs (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Boris Johnson resigns[edit]

Oppose for now neither this is official/formal nor he is resigning as PM until autumn (this is what’s ITNR). We need to do as we have always done here: wait for the new PM to be appointed and mention in the blurb that his/her predecessor resigned due to a scandal. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that that's what "we have always done here" is clearly false, as shown below.

A main purpose of ITN is "to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news", meaning that the timing should be determined by coverage in (reliable) news sources - not by when individual Wikipedia editors' tastes for ceremonial formality are fully satisfied. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He is not resigning as PM, only as party leader, he will remain PM until a party leadership contest can be held to choose a new PM. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until he actually leaves and is replaced, as that's the actual WP:ITNR event. This is what we did when Imran Khan was deposed as Pakistan PM, and what we should do here too, especially as he won't stop being PM for a while. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wait~~ this is the same as the 2022 United Kingdom government crisis nomination below. He's resigned but not actually going anywhere. Wait until he actually goes. Polyamorph (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support altblurb pending the official announcement, on the basis of previous precedent. Polyamorph (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that we posted both Theresa May's resignation announcement (May 2019) and Boris's swearing in (July 2019). We also posted David Cameron's resignation announcement in 2016 but that was merged with the Brexit blurb. I'll weak support based on this precedent as this is making headlines internationally. Davey2116 (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But they resigned as prime minister. BJ hasn't.Polyamorph (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the links? May also had not yet resigned as PM, she remained in office for two more months after her announcement was featured in ITN. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the links but didn't realise it was 2 months (I know it was given in the link text so should have realised). Ok please disregard! Polyamorph (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until he formally announces it. I view this as an edge case. Typically we only post items whenever a leader is elected or takes office, not merely whenever someone announces their resignation. As @Davey2116 also points out, whether or not to post this would depend on the extent of coverage in reliable sources. Gust Justice (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support once we get an official announcement. We don't need to wait for the endless Tory leadership contest to drag out to post this, it's in the news everywhere now. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

btw, 2022 United Kingdom government crisis could also be linked in a blurb on this. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Strikethrough The Kip (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to support on formal announcement as per below. The Kip (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support once we get an official announcement, no formal resignation has yet been made. It's already global news, we posted Theresa May's resignation and Boris Johnson's succession as separate news stories a few months apart. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the newly added more precise altblurb version. The announcement is amply supported by reliable sources. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. BBC, NY Times and other sources report that Johnson will only resign as the Conservative party leader, but will remain the Prime Minister at least until the Fall. A party leadership change is not ITNR. Nsk92 (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Altblurb~~ Alt2 is better. But no idea how he will now construct a cabinet. Probably best nipping down to B&Q. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hear a politician named Allen Key will be heavily involved. Hope they do a good job constructing the cabinet, lest it collapse without warning in a few months. Davey2116 (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They'd be wise to adopt the Swedish model: "A child of 6 could assemble"... ah, maybe not. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any way you look at it he loses. -- Sca (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good old Billy. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think both his resignation and the subsequent installation of a replacement are newsworthy, and as per the T. May precedent it's fine to post both. — Amakuru (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now What a silly nomination. Just wait until it actually happens. HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until it actually happens. At present all we have are a bunch of 'expected to announce his resignation' reports based on anonymous sources. Modest Genius ^talk 10:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, support posting now he's actually announced he's going. But the blurb should make it clear he's resigning once a successor has been chosen, not now - I added alt2. The article also needs to be up to scratch. Modest Genius ^talk 11:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Davey2116. Also, by the end of his time as Prime Minister, it won't be news, it'll be a pre-scheduled event. -- Zanimum (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wait for his replacement as PM the changeover is noteworthy. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Support HaeB is right, this is in the news now, post it now. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support poor old Boris is scheduled to announce it at 12:30 UK time. Cripes! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bye, bye, Boris! Grimes2 (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that he has resigned. Anarchyte (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: waiting until the new leader would just be incredibly silly. Sceptre (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now I Support this It was still a really stupid nomination. ITN/C needs to stop this sort of nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We're all agreed we'll post the news of a new prime minister, so pointless having two blurbs on the same subject. Just wait until the new leader comes to office. Gopchunk (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As of right now he has only resigned the party leadership, not his prime ministership (at least not initially), can post once a new prime minister is chosen, and it would qualify under ITN/R criteria. 🌈 4🧚‍♂am KING 👑 12:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Amakuru. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Richard Nixon announcing his resignation would have rocketed onto ITN within seconds of his televised address, if ITN existed back in the 1970s. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That'd be because Gerald Ford would have immediately become POTUS, Template:U. In this case we are yet to see the successor. Tube·of·Light 14:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question for those that know UK politics - how long can it be anticipated that the successor will be named? A few days? Weeks or months? If the later, then this clearly should be posted now along with the replacement, but if we can expect a new name in a few days, wait until then. (The article quality is good so that's not an issue). --Masem (t) 12:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably 3-6 weeks while the Conservatives hold their leadership contest. Johnson might go faster if he's forced to leave now and an interim takes over, but again that would just be while the leadership contest continues. Modest Genius ^talk 12:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'd say about 3-6 weeks too. This has more info, but nothing about the actual timescales. I guess it depends on how many step forward for nomination. Or indeed, how many step back leaving just one person standing forward... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His aides were briefing this morning that he would like to stay until October. That seems unrealistic though. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resignation by itself should not be mentioned unless extraordinary circumstances surrounded it (assassination, coup-d'etat, Watergate-like cockups etc.). I think the ITN blurb should only be posted once the new leader emerges. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wait for his replacement he is still Prime Minister . We not need twice UK news on Wikipedia.Shadow4dark (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is still Prime Minister and there is no successor for now. And after 4 weeks we will post the same story Shadow4dark (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a very small price to pay for ITN capturing what is obviously a very newsworthy story at the absolute pinnacle of its importance to the U.K. and to the rest of the world, much the same way we post U.S. business deals/mergers/acquisitions as they are announced and not after all the SEC paperwork is filled out and completed. We would look damn foolish still having a headline up about a national hockey championship that happened three weeks ago, when the rest of the world has already moved on to bigger fish. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not national, it's the world's biggest event in club ice hockey and the championship of the world's strongest league and the Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnepeg. Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal teams are all Canadian. Perhaps Niagara Falls, Canada and Windsor, Canada support Buffalo and Detroit respectively. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the point is that we should be posting items that are in the news now, for the sake of avoiding the appearance of stagnation and complacency on a publicly visible section of the main page. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 3 weeks is very long. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Overwhelmingly the No. 1 story worldwide, per additional source links posted above. (Example: The main page of Reuters features two BoJo articles with large pics.) Details regarding how long he may remain as caretaker PM seem decidedly secondary. – Sca (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Alt1. -- Sca (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support Yeah this should be posted when it's in the news, that's when it's the most useful. There really is no point otherwise.

Avast rumali (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Sca, and support altblurb2. Jusdafax (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Resignation announcement is significant itself. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 12:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Resignations in ITN: United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron announces his resignation after the United Kingdom votes to leave the European Union. British Prime Minister Theresa May, under pressure over her handling of Brexit, announces her intention to resign. Grimes2 (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unconditional support This is literally all over the place in the news and one of the more significant developments of Johnson's time as prime minister. "wait for the replacement" is just needless bureaucratic delay. I'll note that May's resignation was posted - and that one happened far less dramatically than this one. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - when a new PM is installed then as a new government head sure, but right now this is local politics. nableezy - 13:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: in the past, we haven’t waited until January 6th to declare a US presidential election for one candidate or another; we’ve done it as soon as it was called (last year’s insurrection notwithstanding). Sceptre (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the first to make the comparison. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did I miss an election here? Or even an announcement of a new PM? nableezy - 13:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And did I miss the discussion where we decided that highly significant developments that are in the news no longer get featured on this page? — Amakuru (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see how this is a highly significant development outside of the UK. But the argument I was responding to was we announced electoral victories when they happen, and that is not the case here. But as ever, ITN continues as one last English colony. Some minor country has, yet again, seen a PM not finish their term. Rush to ITN commence. nableezy - 15:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Casting the UK as a “minor country” is perhaps wishful thinking when squared up against the fact the UK remains a nuclear power with a permanent Security Council seat, and one of the world’s largest economies. This news item is the largest, or second-largest, item of the websites of a whole bunch of newspapers of record. Also, casting ITN as a English colony is pretty a cute line, but fails against the reality that a collegiate basketball tournament in America is on ITNR but a major international tournament in the world’s most popular sport isn’t. Sceptre (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being a Free Mason used to be indicative of some importance too. This aint 1948 anymore and the UNSC permanent seats system in which the victors of WWII now and forever have a veto right over international peace and security is sillier than how the arguments about "This news item is the largest, or second-largest, item of the websites of a whole bunch of newspapers of record" applies to any number of events but are routinely shot down here because oh it happened in the US. As far as economies, the UK is responsible for about 2% of world GDP. The GDP of a single American city compares. So yeah, minor. And almost routine, given this is what the third straight PM to resign? nableezy - 18:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, pretty sure Cameron, May and Johnson are all straight. Just varying numbers of kids. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC) p.s. May never known to be a Freemason.[reply]

There is a moralistic fallacy in what you’re saying, though; just because you may wish the UK was seen as a "minor country" doesn’t mean that it is. Despite Johnson and co's attempts to the contrary, the UK still does have some relevancy (although, I grant you, the days of being a superpower died in the Suez 70 years ago). It's not for us to say something isn’t significant when it very clearly is. Sceptre (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC) By the way, Template:U, May can’t have been a Freemason; she’s a woman.[reply]
Is she? Oh damn. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of funny that Sceptre used basically the same argument I did before I deleted my post with a "Never mind". 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm an American and am the one who proposed this blurb, as it is ITN (and I happened to be awake when his resignation was announced). I don't see this as any different than if the President of the United States announced his resignation. We'd blurb that too. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative blurb it’s succinct. Trillfendi (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative blurb, reflects a major UK news story that has received international coverage. The alternative blurb gives the most accurate and concise summary of these significant events that have been built up to for some time. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it's in the news now. Don't see any reason to wait until the new PM, which will be several weeks away at least.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - important global news, significant in itself; "local politics" or "wait until new PM" arguments just seem silly here; this is a dramatic development (big Cabinet revolt) in a P5 member state. Neutrality^talk 14:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per precedent (Theresa May) and the fact that this story is front page news globally (and will be far bigger news that his successor being appointed). Most of the Oppose comments are quite weak, but without banging the US-centric drum again I think it's fairly obvious that, say, a US President resigning after a third of his government resigned en masse would be posted in around five minutes. Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. I am not sure if the alt is better but the headlines say "Johnson resigns", so that's the story. --Tone 14:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting question So from now on, the argument that "there is a precedent" is already valid? Recall that this argument was rejected in multiple previous nominations. Or is it only so when it is arbitrarily decided? This is a serious question. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, but when people are saying things along the line of "ITN posts it when a successor is appointed", it's reasonable to point out that isn't always the case. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What we need to do is, for future nominations, agree on whether using the "there is a precedent" argument can be sufficient for a nomination, as it is in this case, to prosper and not be used in reverse to reject votes. And I speak, for example, this discussion. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason why precedence is such a prominent feature of common-law courts: it's a great way of ensuring fairness in similar cases. ITN really should adopt something like it for that exact reason. I'd go so far as to say that it'd be useful in adjudicating all disputes at Wikipedia. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe precedence is a bad concept (and live in a civil law country), why should we be bound to previous decisions that may have been wrong? Especially for ITN, there are no fixed laws, it soley depends on the prevailing opinion in the people that chose to involve themselves at that time point. Chaosquo (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting suggestion:
Can we use this image instead?
— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be better. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have one of him holding a microphone, a'la Fernando Lugo? 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In his case, a bull-horn might be more appropriate. -- Sca (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(NYT hed: "Boris Johnson’s Lies Worked for Years, Until They Didn’t")
– Sca (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:-

Post-posting Support Given my previous opposition on posting various aspects of this crisis, this is definitely the point that such a posting is appropriate. Presumably there will another ITN when the new Prime Minister is chosen. Nfitz (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Georgia Guidestones[edit]

Oppose a local artwork/monument has been intentionally blown up, that's not ITN worthy material. If the actual Stonehenge had been destroyed, that would be ITN worthy, but this is not. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- as per Joseph. This is not ITN material... but probably would fit perfectly in DYK. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose supporting this nomination would be a clear US-bias. Neither is it a world-renowned and popular monument, nor is this event of outstanding national and international interest and coverage. Suggest snow close. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know... that the furry days are over when I'm governor? Davey2116 (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Joseph. A bunch of granite slabs installed by some unknown freak are blown up by another unknown freak. Breaking news, really~ Arado Ar 196 (C✙T) 11:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tricia (elephant)[edit]

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

Support article is good enough for RD, and animals are eligible for RD if they have their own article (which is the case here). I think we should probably list on the front page as Tricia (elephant), to avoid confusion with Trisha of Trisha Goddard (TV series) (formerly just known as "Trisha"). That's the first person I would think of if I saw Tricia listed on RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And to avoid confusion with Tricia Nixon. -- Sca (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no quality issues with this article, so I see this as good to go. Captain Galaxy 19:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice article, can see no problems. Yakikaki (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just found out about her, but I already love her. RIP sweet elephant. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
post-posting comment: it is a bit eerie that this is the second time this year that a notable animal was posted to rd around the time a former japanese prime minister died. dying (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 6[edit]

(Posted) RD: P. Gopinathan Nair[edit]

Comment There are several sentences that aren't cited or properly cited, particularly in Biography section. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Thanks for this note. Can you add Template:Cn or other tags as necessary where citations are missing? Like I said, I have been busy and have not had a chance to work this article but the article looked reasonable on a superficial glance. Ktin (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deployment of footnotes seems reasonable to me. Length (800+ words) is okay, too. No formatting problems. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Proper citations and career coverage. Joofjoof (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted—Bagumba (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ira Valentine[edit]

Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(RD posted) RD/Blurb: James Caan[edit]

Weak oppose Filmography section unsourced and the 2000s and 2010s section of his career have some tags/need ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Support Article looks good for RD posting, would not be opposed to blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Re, should be all set now, only a minor point or two perhaps that should not hold up posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Obviously. Celebrated actor, illustrious career, from Sonny Corleone and before through The Gambler (1974 film), Funny Lady to and starring appearances in multiple famous films and television work. Legendary actor. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being a well-known actor with many notable roles is not in itself enough for a blurb. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But six-decade career in films and television and working with top directors is a good indicator. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon. This is borderline disruptive. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Legendary actor, see how he is described. Many tributes and many publications across media. I do not quite see what is borderline disruptive, especially since there are no other RDs submitted for blurbs currently and there haven't been for some time. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Filmog is done, no other issues jumping out. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No Blurb Patrick Watson, Hank Goldberg and Pedro Ferrándiz were also recently called legends who worked with top colleagues for decades, to name just a few. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who they are, sorry. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better comparison would be Ray Liotta, another recently deceased actor who was highly accredited and renowned, but didn't quite meet the high threshold to which we hold the death of public figures as being blurb-worthy. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Ferrándiz - 7 wiki articles, Patrick Watson - 4 wiki articles, Hank Goldberg - 2 wiki articles. You can imagine how many wiki articles has Caan. Completely different levels of notability. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a new way of appraising a life or death. New to me, anyway. Thanks for checking! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD. Sourcing is all sewn up now. I unfourtunately don't think he's significant enough a figure for a blurb, though he was a great actor. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb: excellent actor but I don't think he was transformative enough. He didn't win any major awards if I recall correctly. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 20:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb does not stand out among other top tier actors Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read this [52]. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Numerous film appearance does not equate to being a top of their field person. There's nothing in the article related to his legacy, and it doesn't even look like he won any awards. Rd is sufficient once the article is better sourced. --Masem (t) 21:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Notable actor with a distinguished career.--TheDutchViewer (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD But should get a blurb for Elf alone ;-) CoatCheck (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RD posted Unlikely to be consensus for blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After post comment, I have removed two citations at "personal life" section (not verified and non-RS), leaving two cn tags there. Alexcalamaro (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kazuki Takahashi[edit]

Mostly support - Agree that a couple parts of the career section could use citations but other than that looks good to me. Someone's gone through and thoroughly cited it, changing to support. PolarManne (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - article looks good to me. Pladica (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article is ready barring a citation needed in "Personal life" section, which should be fixed first before posting this to ITN. Behind that, it was absolutely shocking to see Takahashi and Abe dying in the same day. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a citation for that statement. Should be all cited now. Link20XX (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now that the last citation needed tag is taken care of, this looks good to go. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bryan Marchment[edit]

Support Enough. Grimes2 (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post posting support per article quality, although I do wish that there had been a bit more consensus to post before just going for it. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 11:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, was I too quick? Please be encouraged to scroll up and down ITN/C. There are quite a number of (unattended) noms scattered along this page that could use some reviews, suggestions and support votes. Thanks. -- PFHLai (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2022 United Kingdom government crisis[edit]

Oppose at this time as there is really no change to the main control of the government yet, but it is a situation to watch. --Masem (t) 20:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not until a new prime minister is announced. Haris920 (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Probably best to wait until something more significant happens i.e. The PM resigns/is ousted. Furthermore, consider removing the section in the blurb about the Pincher scandal, although some resignations are probably related to this, it is probably a clumination of this plus Partygate and the Second Jobs scandal TRAVBRUHH (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If only Boris had a second job lined up. I hear the Carlton Club is looking for a door supervisor. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Prime Minister Johnson doing something unforgivable, apologizing profusely, mass resignations, and nothing much happens, is a regular occurrence. If the story was all about Chancellor Sunak resigning, then it might be debatable - but the stories all seem to be phrased as being about Johnson's future. Nfitz (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's been a s**t show for months/years. No change except BJ might actually finally go this time. Or maybe he'll prorogue parliament again. Either way we must wait. Polyamorph (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably needs to be ongoing. For UK quite seismic. Not seen for three generations, or more. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. news just in... has now sacked that devious Quisling Michael "snake-hips" Gove. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Not worthy of being posted on its own, but would be if it leads to a change in government. Gust Justice (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait He's under pressure to resign, but if he ignores this pressure, then this is just another item on the growing list of Johnson scandals. We'll have to wait and see what happens. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until and unless the PM resigns and there's a new PM, in which case ITNR new head of government. -- KTC (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close for now it's the typical government crisis that happens in a country. And it's neither the only one nor the most exceptional. What is truly ITNR is whether Johnson ends up resigning and a new PM is appointed. So this nomination must be closed until Johnson quits, if it happens. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is this even an option? If one dislikes a nomination enough, can one disrupt the process by demanding discussion is halted until a point he deems convenient? complainer 08:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose People can resign til the cows come home, but the only resignation that would truly matter would be that of the top man at 10 Downing Street. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If many more go, that's where he'll be recruiting. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abottom

RD: Jack Gordon[edit]

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

With so much coverage missing from this stubby wikibio, there is no point in thinking about any rule-bending to let this late nom through. After adding the prose on his coaching the North Stars and working as GM in Minnesota, we'll also need prose on his work as GM in Vancouver. That's three big sections missing! Have fun writing about the Neely-Wesley giveaway. I know some Canuck fans who are still upset about that lopsided trade with Boston decades later.... --PFHLai (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality as the text is one paragraph, and article has two sources. Much more that can be said about him. Note, as there were more than 2 days between his date of death and announcement date, this won't go stale until a week after the date of announcement. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality Is there any coverage besides career in AHL? The article is stubby and NOT ready for RD. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 5[edit]

(Posted) RD: Alfred Koerppen[edit]

Support Satis. Sourced. Size ok. Grimes2 (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you - ec: I now even wrote the article of his wife. Do I have to advertise louder that this looks ready? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marking ready. Let's see if there's any luck. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Happy to post, but could you please explain the sourcing style you've selected for the #Work section? Some sections have citations per line, one with a "Source" listed at the start, and others with none at all. Anarchyte (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are (as for Peter Brook, last week) several lists of works by him, all at the beginning. Some works have additional extra sources. ALl this wasn't chosen by us but the orinal writers of the German articles (if that had any sources, - often enough not). #12 Schott is the most detailed of the secondary sources, and then there's his own which I think we could trust also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Anarchyte (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{Attention needed) RD: P. Gopinathan Nair[edit]

Comment There are several sentences that aren't cited or properly cited, particularly in Biography section. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Thanks for this note. Can you add Template:Cn or other tags as necessary where citations are missing? Like I said, I have been busy and have not had a chance to work this article but the article looked reasonable on a superficial glance. Ktin (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deployment of footnotes seems reasonable to me. Length (800+ words) is okay, too. No formatting problems. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mike Schuler[edit]

This wikibio is long enough to qualify (600+ words of prose). Coverage seems adequate. Footnotes can be found where they are expected. Formatting looks fine. And, Earwig could not find any problems. This is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article is ready to go. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Sri Lankan bankruptcy[edit]

Support - Honestly I really think Sri Lanka's economic crisis needs to be included in ongoing, and I would prefer that over blurbing this specifically, cause its in the news, and keeps coming up. 🌈 4🧚‍♂am KING 👑 15:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality I could support this, but the article is in poor shape with an orange tag, many inline tags, and there doesn't appear to be an update, merely saying that the bill is due in July. The timeline section ends at May. This will be a long haul to get into shape. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality article is orange-tagged as POV. It cannot be posted until that is fixed. That being said, a country declaring bankruptcy is unusual, so might be ITN worthy if article is fixed. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In principle this is an important and blurb-worthy story, but it's not clear if this is the right moment and the article needs substantial work. There are NPOV and failed verification tags, the whole text could do with a careful copyedit, and some parts seem to be out of date. The most recent events mentioned are from 22 June, which is too stale for ITN. Worse, the actual news from 5 July just seems to be the PM using the word 'bankrupt' when describing negotiations with the IMF - that's not a formal declaration and it isn't clear how much worse it is than the previous announcement of debt default. Overall, I think a better option would be to put this in ongoing once the article has been cleaned up - which will be quite a bit of work. Modest Genius ^talk 15:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think is important to show the crisis of Sri Lanka because it is worst every day and it is very related to other social crisis that right now are happening Federizaguirre (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A country going bankrupt is significant. -Abhishikt (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Oppose~~ – Not unexpected. Lanka's cirsis has been going on for months, if not years. – Sca (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – It may not be a good piece of news but it is definitely a significant development, and may be close to once in a generation event. – Soup (Talk with me) 00:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality – As long as there is a neutrality tag, this can't go onto the main page. Once that's resolved, I could support this. Schwede 66 02:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I may be mistaken, but the PM's use of the word seems to be as some sort of figure of speech, often reported in the news with inverted commas. It was never clearly stated/implied in the news reports that there is some kind of technical economic/legal definition of a country being bankrupt (if there is one). Ongoing will be suitable, with blurbs for appropriate discrete events such as making some financial deal with the IMF/World Bank etc Bumbubookworm (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Bumbubookworm. It seems the usage of the word "bankrupt" is a figure of speech and not an actual statement of the facts. Carter00000 (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Seems to be heating up. [53] [54] [55] [56] Bears watching. – Sca (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favour of 2022 Sri Lankan protests or 2022 Sri Lankan political crisis. The presidential palace has been overrun by protestors, and the president's location is unknown - rumoured to be fleeing the country. Boud (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) BYD Auto becomes worlds largest EV producer[edit]

Support Article seems to be okay. Never heard from this company. Grimes2 (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Lacks significance, better as a fact for DYK. Also the article doesn't even mention this fact, even in the section titled "Sales". 🌈 4🧚‍♂am KING 👑 13:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article to reflect the above information. Carter00000 (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support A company that is obscure in the west producing the most electric vehicles is both significant and useful for our readers to know. BilledMammal (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 4iamking. Trivia, and best suited to DYK. — Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overtakes in rankings can change back and forth and are not suitable for posting Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - I was leaning support, but have to agree with Bumbubookworm in the end. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Amakuru. Not widely covered among RS sites – at least not yet. – Sca (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose aside from the significance issues noted, there is only a single sentence added to the article. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Business news is an underrepresented topic on ITN; has been ever since we started ITN (when we used to have something called minority topics). I'm in favor of broadening our horizons in this front, even if it's not as sexy a story as people might expect to see out of the business world. --WaltCip-(talk) 14:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Amakuru as well. This seems like general MILL coverage and not the in depth journalism I'd expect for a claim of this nature. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose trivia that isn't ground breaking, and rankings change all the time. That's even before the article quality issue that it's not even mentioned in the target article. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A 'so what?' piece of news. If they had become the largest car manufacturer overall that might be worth a blurb, but restricting the numbers to one power source isn't very meaningful. We wouldn't post the biggest diesel car company, and didn't post when Tesla become the largest electric car company either. I agree it's a neat factoid that might work at DYK, but the article isn't new; it would need to be improved to GA standards to qualify. Modest Genius ^talk 15:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mohammed Barkindo[edit]

Template:ITN candidate Support, Article needs expansion but the death of OPEC SG should come in the ITN. Alex-h (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality the article in French may be useful for further information. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Immediately after the Early life and education section comes the Death section? Where is the Career section? The longest section at this time is the Intro. This stubby wikibio needs major expansion and re-structuring. --PFHLai (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality The death of a secretary general in multinational organizations like OPEC should be notable enough that they might deserve a mention in ITN, but unfortunately the lack of career section torpedoes this. That's unfortunate. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Career section added, meets minimum requirements.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And more about his time at OPEC? Assumption of office, relevant measures he took, opinions, official trips, his succession... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can add that yourself, but that's not a requirement for RD. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Um yes it is part of the basic article quality requirement: Template:Tq. Omitting probably his biggest worldwide achievement is in violation of this. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. Nominate for RD a secretary general of an international organization, that his article doesn't talk about what he did during his tenure and claim that "that's not a requirement for RD" is insane. Improving the article is also the responsibility of the nominator. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mona Hammond[edit]

Support - Article sees to have no issues. Prodrummer619 (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Fields medal[edit]

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

Support OK, but Hugo Duminil-Copin is a stub and needs sources. Grimes2 (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Which wikipage(s) is/are the ITN candidate(s) here? The nom template shows "| article = Fields Medal", but Fields Medal is not bolded in the blurb. This wikipage has a few unsourced statements in the Landmark section, including one about a 2022 winner. Please add REFs. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to 2018, Fields Medal was the only bolded article. From the 2018 discussion, there were issues with the articles having quality differences among each other. Joofjoof (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, the four winners are the nominated pages, but the template only allows for one or two, which is why I chose Fields Medal for that purpose. Sandstein 12:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Hugo is a stub and should be expanded. The Fields Medal was mentioned in the intro of the other three wikibios, but not in the main body. Please elaborate in the main prose what they have done to earn the medal. Just adding 8 words to the intro does not seem like an adequate update for ITN purposes. June is a borderline-stub/start class article. His various positions are mentioned in the intro but not in the main prose. If these can be elaborated upon in the main prose, say in the Career section, this wikibio won't be a stub anymore. --PFHLai (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I have tried to expand June Huh and started on Viazovska Bumbubookworm (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to issues noted with Duminil-Copin, Maynard is not ready. Given the length, the issues with WP:PRIMARY and WP:PROSELINE are prohibitive marks against quality. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all four articles have been improved (WP:PRIMARY issues in Maynard had been solved). The quality of them is ok for an ITN item. Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hugo Duminil-Copin is still classified as a stub, coming in at ~1300 characters (excluding the dot-pointed awards section). Anarchyte (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No stub anymore: 1987 characters (311 words) "readable prose size". Grimes2 (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm expanding it further Bumbubookworm (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. ITNR and all four articles meet our minimum requirements. Looks good to go to me. It's pleasing that we had articles on all of these people before they won the prize. I don't have a problem with Coplin's article, though as it's the shortest maybe the order should be changed so it isn't the first bold link. Added a slightly tweaked blurb. Modest Genius ^talk 10:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posting, nice work with the articles! --Tone 10:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support and all four of them have pictures so can we post each one for half a day or so? Davey2116 (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Clever - I second this suggestion! Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Great idea. I added Maryna Viazovska's image to the main page a few minutes ago, and I've updated WP:CMP to include the rest of the recipients to facilitate image changes later on. I suggest posting on WP:ERRORS for updates now that it's been posted. Anarchyte (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Half a day is up so I've swapped the photo to now show Hugo Duminil-Copin. Schwede 66 02:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 4[edit]

(Posted) RD: Hank Goldberg[edit]

Comment Handicapping should be mentioned somewhere in the lead (and body) along with ESPN (if not also Sunday NFL Countdown)—he wasn't just on minor ESPN2 and ESPN Radio.—Bagumba (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re done. NFL Countdown was already mentioned in the body. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK —Bagumba (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 23:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Patrick Watson (producer)[edit]

Long enough to qualify (400+ words of prose), with footnotes deployed where they are expected, no concerns regarding formatting, and with no problems identified by Earwig, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Anarchyte (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Cláudio Hummes[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate Template:Hat

The Biography section has multiple footnote-free paragraphs. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sourcing problems still outstanding.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Highland Park parade shooting[edit]

Strong oppose gun crime in US is routine. I expect all the US people who voted against the Copenhagen shooting (which was in a country that doesn't encourage gun violence) to vote oppose to this too, lest they all be biased hypocrites. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A rooftop shooter at a 4th of July parade is not (yet) routine. Guess I'm a biased hypocrite. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calling people "biased hypocrites" has to violate WP:AGF and WP:Aspersions, no? Anyway, I guess I'm a biased hypocrite too, because I think this should be posted. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 18:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the type of comment that we just discussed at WT:ITN that is on the road to incivility. Wholly inappropriate. Masem (t) 18:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calling out bias is acceptable if it exists. Currently nobody has voted no to Copenhagen and yes to this, but if they do, then they need to think about whether they have a US bias. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so you're making up something that hasn't even happened yet and then getting outraged over it? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 18:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - Article obviously requires expansion Prodrummer619 (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Joseph. Just another routine shooting in United States. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was just drafting the nomination for this nomination. No, not just another routine shooting. People don't get shot at parades everyday. This shooting is receiving a lot of news coverage and our article is of good quality thus far, though it still needs some expansion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People get shot every day in America. Supporting or posting this and not the Copenhagen shooting is a clear US bias. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, Joseph. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really hope that people learn to comment better than this. Your lack of understanding of gun violence in the United States is not helpful for these the. Only comment on the nomination at hand, not the nomination in another thread – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I really hope people can see why this support stinks of bias. Article is worse quality than Copenhagen one too.... Joseph2302 (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting the nice start of an article on a shooting at a 4th of July. Parade is bias? While you oppose the posting of a shooting with six deaths and support one with three deaths. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not US bias at all. 6 deaths > 3 deaths. That's all this is. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 18:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't think this is currently significant enough to be blurbed. Perhaps if the number of casualties increases and/or some strong motive emerges. YD407OTZ (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Joseph. Status quo in the US. 2600:6C51:7C7F:8D66:6DCC:D50C:82DC:180F (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- this is not just a routine shooting. People don't routinely get shot and killed in the US at parades, and most gun crime is related to gang violence, which this is not. This also seems like an act of terrorism. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 18:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I second YD407OTZ. It's too early after the incident, and information is lacking. AkiraRorschach (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Frequent, regularly occurring and predictable events are not significant.
Comment If I had to guess, both this and the Copenhagen proposed blurb are going to be closed without consensus developing to post. Maybe it's a good idea to prematurely close them both now, so we don't end up slinging mud at each other. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 18:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite the proclivity for gun violence in the US, believe it or not we do not often have sniper shootings. This is significant and receiving a lot of worldwide coverage and the article is well written. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Probably not a worthy thing to say but realistically... nobody outside of America would be interested (nor surprised) in seeing another shooting in the US. I'm personally kinda bored of seeing these kinds of news.

Prodrummer619 (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose excluding this event there were 55 shootings in Chicago this weekend alone with 7 deaths there is absolutely no reason to single this one out for notability. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're not singling it out: the media is singling it out. Isn't our purpose here at In The News to showcase articles that are in the news? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The media is not singling this out. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One wire report in the Chicago Sun-Times for the Chicago shootings, with every other publication running the Highland Park shooting is the media singling out the Highland Park shooting. BTW, this makes for a good place to point out that Highland Park is not Chicago. Chicago has lots of shootings, while Highland Park is the site of John Hughes movies. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NBC's counting, too. But fine, Highland Park is temporarily hotter, till the next hot local shooting. Did you know some shooters in North Highland Park use unregistered axes or that Detroit's latest Highland Park shooter is still at large? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. It's not a school shooting, there's no ideological motive, and the death toll isn't high enough to be particularly notable on its own. If this changes then I'll consider flipping my vote. GeicoHen (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a standard shooting either. Most shootings in the US and I'd say everywhere else are not carried out by snipers... PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the sniper aspect of the shooting is going to grab the public's attention the same way high death tolls, motives, or the victims being children do. GeicoHen (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Article appears to be in good standing and is front page news. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait There are a lot basic question unanswered. If this turns out to be just another run of the mill mass shooting, I would oppose. But if it turns out to be a terrorist incident, I likely would support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now per Joseph, GeicoHen etc. And how about we stop censoring people's views just because we disagree with them. Much as its unfortunate and sad, and RIP to the victims, Six people is not a high number for a US shooting. We're also not posting the Copenhagen one as the death toll was low, so it's not anti US bias. — Amakuru (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Censorship? Really? Hatting an inappropriate and uncivil vote is censorship? On what planet? WaltCip-(talk) 19:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's censorship, it's still there. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really "still there", because it's been collapsed. Someone casually looking over the thread would think the first vote is a support. — Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone looking with Javascript off sees it highlighted in an attractive camel/tan/peach box. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Frequent, regularly occurring and predictable local events are not significant. A major shooting in a country every few years would be notable. Weekly events aren't I've got the news on now - they literally just said mass shooting occur DAILY in this particular country. Nfitz (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mass shootings that kill 6 people do not occur daily in the US at all. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's still far more than the once a century to once a decade that normal countries have; it's not even the first shooting of this size this year! That a page like List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 even exists, let alone is so large that it should probably be broken down per month. But hang on - looking at that list, it ONLY included mass shooting with 4 or more injuries. There's been 11 shootings (almost one every 2 weeks) with more than 5 deaths, and 290 shootings in about 185 days. The death toll this year alone is near 400 people. There's no way we should doing an ITN every couple of weeks, for such a common event. Nfitz (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The more accurate comparison would be the table on "No Way to Prevent This", Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens. Juxlos (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Juxlos just gave me a great idea. We should blurb every U.S. shooting that gets the "No Way to Prevent This" treatment from The Onion. If it doesn't get its own Onion send-up, we don't post it. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose. Sad but predictable. Not news. Ericoides (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A sniper at a 4th of July parade is not predictable. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A sniper at an event where the gun situation is completely out-of-control is very predictable, not surprising, and not significant on anything other than a local scale. I'll predict that this isn't the last similar event this year - which is unfathomable. Nfitz (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand the difference between every day gun violence and a sniper shooting someone. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Illinois governor J. B. Pritzker said: "“While we celebrate the Fourth of July just once a year, mass shootings have become our weekly – yes, weekly – American tradition." Sniper shooting someone, everyday gun violence, it's all guns, it's all Americans. This is not news; it should be filed under "Ongoing events". Ericoides (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the "weekly American tradition" of mass shootings. Just because it's a sniper or a parade or a music festival or a school or whatever, it's just another traditional attack. Profoundly commonplace. >300 firearm deaths per day. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a story of a sniper shooting someone dead in Sioux Falls for shooting someone dead in Hartford yesterday. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I (sadly) acknowledge that mass shootings are routine here in the U.S., but a sniper killing multiple people at a holiday parade is somewhat exceptional. Funcrunch (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The proposed blurb doesn't state the country in which this event took place. Chrisclear (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Propose an altblurb then. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better if the proposer would just include the country in the first place. Chrisclear (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do people not know what country Illinois is in or something? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Chrisclear (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, generally the names of the US states are sufficient to identify that this happened in the US. --Masem (t) 23:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Knowledge of one particular country's subregions shouldn't be expected of our readers. Especially when (to use just one example), Tokyo, the planet's most populous metropolitan area, is written as Tokyo, Japan Chrisclear (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the state is blue-linked and one can just click it to get their answer... WaltCip-(talk) 00:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Readers shouldn't have to click on a link to find out such basic information. And again, if we provide the name of country in which a city of 37 million is found, it follows that we should do the same for a state with only 12 million people. Chrisclear (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you would apply the same criteria to Kano State, Sindh, Uttar Pradesh, and Metropolitan Manila, which are the most populous sub-national regions in four of the five-largest countries by English speaking populations. They all have larger populations than Illinois, with Uttar Pradesh having a population almost 6/10 the size of the entire US. However, you wouldn't expect a random guy from Chicago to know where any four of those are, just like how most of the world has no idea what or where Illinois is. We shouldn't be broadcasting our Americentrism on the Main Page for everyone to see. AryKun (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, except that Punjab is by far the most populous Pakistani province. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I’d be very surprised if this stays in the news cycle for 3 days. Comparable to a bombing in Kabul. Juxlos (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - New Info:I am supporting this now due to the suspect being caught by the police. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is catching the suspect notable? GeicoHen (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, usually they just kill them. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Rockstone, also this got featured in Current Events, not every Chicago shooting gets that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:681:25A0:0:0:0:32E8 (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but keep in mind that the bar for Portal:Current events (usually a dozen or more items per day) is a lot lower than for the main page (usually one every couple days). Ionmars10 (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment: the onion has republished its 'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens article, suggesting that this may not be a run-of-the-mill event. dying (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We had three shootings between Uvalde and now that got the Onion article, and none of them got on the main page. GeicoHen (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per dying (and think it's high time Illinois was recognized as the sovereign state it is). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think a lot of the opposes happened before the death toll rose from the intial report of 2 to 6 and before there was a person of interest in custody. This story is more fleshed out now and worth presenting to the general reader. P.S. I was at the Hyde Park, Chicago parade that J. B. Pritzker was going to march at and saw his motorcade take off and head north around 11 AM. This story was not a routine Chicago shooting and changed the daily itinerary for our governor. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When your inconvenienced governor Pritzker says, as he did yesterday, "While we celebrate the Fourth of July just once a year, mass shootings have become our weekly – yes, weekly – American tradition," I'm guessing that he might just come down on the "Oppose" side here. That is, unless he'd favour seeing a story like this on our front page every week just to, y'know, increase the coverage of a neglected part of the world. Ericoides (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I posted my oppose the death toll was already at 6. And a person of interest being in custody doesn’t make the shooting any more notable than it was beforehand. GeicoHen (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose routine mass shooting event in America. Nothing unusual at all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping But this isn't just any mass shooting; it's the first ever mass shooting involving a rooftop sniper interrupting a gubernatorial motorcade. That doesn't count for something in your book? WaltCip-(talk) 11:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know, right? Every mass shooting in America has some kind of bizarre circumstantial intersection that suddenly makes it inherently suitable for ITN, second-worst school shooting on a Monday in the Southern States which didn't involve an AR-15, fifth-worst shooting at a music event in western Texas since 2019 when it was raining etc. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In a country where keeping and bearing arms is a constitutionally protected right, this is nothing but an easily predictable consequence. You're going to reap just what you sow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it's clearly notable & the article is OK. But given the many opposes, maybe it's time to actually add the mass shootings article to Ongoing 😭 –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - In the news, I guess, but roughly comparable to a bombing in Afghanistan, a massacre in Tigray, or executions in Syria- tragic, but routine and thus not notable. You can argue all you want, but when a country has shootings with double digit death tolls twice a month, it is routine. AryKun (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about your statistic at the end: looking at the official Wikipedia page on mass shootings, double digit death tolls are more like 2-4 times per year. Still, I do agree that these kind of shootings (4-6 deaths), while tragic, are routine in the US, comparable with the examples you mentioned. YD407OTZ (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These shootings are routine in the U.S. now. Sandstein 08:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sadly these are relatively commonplace in the US. Therapyisgood (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Ericoides, TRM, Therapy. The well-regulated militia continues its usual work. – Sca (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mass shootings of this death toll & higher are common. It being done by a sniper on a roof doesn't make it more notable. I'm consistent & stated my opposition to Oslo & Copenhagen being posted as well. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mass shootings are common in the United States, less so in affluent suburban communities, less so on parades for national holidays. But ITN has basically become a place for Europeans to scold Americans on their innate violence and ignoring that nearly 40% of English Wikipedia's readers come from the United States (click on Breakdown by country for English Wikipedia) and have this be the top news story in nearly every news source in the country and oddly not be considered "in the news" on Wikipedia. nableezy - 14:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this assessment (partially because it's true). Most of Wikipedia's readership is from the United States. If this were, say, Swahili Wikipedia, sure, this would be a much different conversation. But this incident is large enough that it should warrant a mention, regardless of death toll, and it's relevant to a lot of people. WP:WAX does absolutely apply here, as well. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By all means suggest an American Wikipedia which could cater for the never-ending stream of US mass shooting nominations without hesitation. This, English language Wikipedia, and its news section, really needs to remember it's part of an encyclopedia. I very much doubt that 99% of the mass shootings that take place in the US would make it into an encyclopedia of world events. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too late for an American Wiki. The Serene Court is happily dismantling much that made the U.S. the world's "last best hope," presaging its demise. -- Sca (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 1% of them that lead the headlines across the country do. Much like my plan to enforce secession on the South (but keep Arizona for the Grand Canyon), I dont think Ill be able to get an American Wikipedia, but I do think this instinctive "shootings are routine in the US" from an overrepresented segment of the community is doing a disservice to our readers. Which I thought is what we were here for. nableezy - 14:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about the tone of some Oppose votes, but that comes with the territory. It is not our purpose here to bloviate "thoughts and prayers" like politicians. We understand that all massacres are tragic, but the discussion at ITNC (not ITN) should center on significance per our standards. This necessarily requires an editor to diminish seemingly important events. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "lead the headlines" is just another word for tabloidism when it comes to mass shootings I'm afraid. I suggest we're close to having a separate ticker for "mass shootings in the US" if we open the floodgates and allow this to become American Wikipedia. People just make up bizarre intersections to somehow "ennoble" these routine events, and its pitiful really, and harmful to an eneyclopedic endeavour. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cant understand how of all places "In the news" does not "lead [with] the headlines". Yes, not every mass shooting in the US should be included. That doesnt mean that this one should not be included. There are a bunch of reasons this one is "in the news" more so than other shootings in Chicago, some of them racist, some of them classist, some of them just at the shock of it occurring at a Fourth of July parade. But regardless of why one of those stories carried the headlines across the country, it did. That, to me at least, means it should be "in the news" here as well. nableezy - 14:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You nailed it "just the shock of it occurring at a Fourth of July parade" i.e. tabloidism. And to those of us looking in, this isn't in the slightest bit shocking. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can feel that way, but the coverage of it indicates that it is indeed shocking. At least to the largest represented country, by a long shot, our readers hail from. But, again, that overrepresented group of editors here created an inherent hostility to coverage of anything American, especially this. nableezy - 14:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, in 2019, the NYT ran an article about those outside the US asking "why are you surprised?" This is global ambivalence to these events, not a disproportionate number of non-American Wikipedia editors at English language Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, your comments reflect a fundamental misunderstand of our purpose. While this section is called "In the news" it is not meant to reflect top news stories. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, CNN reports "no one can be sure they are safe, anywhere ... while Monday's shooting outside Chicago was unexpected, another mass shooting in the US was hardly a surprise". Even RS inside the US aren't surprised by this. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is an odd reading of while Monday's shooting outside Chicago was unexpected. Yes, another mass shooting anywhere in the US will likely occur sometime this week if not today. But that does not mean that this one, widely covered across the world (see BBC, Guardian, AFP, ...), is not significant. You know how many non-Europeans give a half a shit about Eurovision? About three. Still on here every year. nableezy - 14:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Never mind! You're comparing ITNR entry about the Eurovision Song Contest to these weekly mass shootings? (I'll admit it's got a bit crap since Israel and Australia joined but hey...) Honestly, that comparison officially losing the plot. Cheers now! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, Im not complaining, Im saying that outside interest of a subject is not determinative of its noteworthiness or inclusion in ITN. nableezy - 14:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, the ESC is INTR, feel free to nominate its removal. Mass shootings happen every week in the US, there's nothing remarkable about them until they rise to the grim level of Uvalde or similar. This one is run of the mill, tragic as it is, and I bet $100 we'll see another one in the next two weeks with a similar or worse death toll. It's not surprising ever, it is occasionally shocking, but not really to those of outside the US. Sorry about that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per TRM: unique circumstances are not special/noteworthy per se. Nevertheless, we have had mass shootings involving snipers and politicians. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Janusz Kupcewicz[edit]

Update I've majorly expanded and sourced it. All the information needed is in the references, I know there's more placing of them to do to the prose. The club career needs to be expanded and the politician career needs to be added and sources found for that.Abcmaxx (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are still needed. Expansion would be good too, but it is minimally long enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - Template:Ping The actual sources are all there for the playing career I just need to put them in all the right places. I will expand too once I get the chance, please bear with.Abcmaxx (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update Did so much to expand and reference this, every single thing is referenced with WP:RS, all aspects of his life and death have been noted, and I believe this should be more than enough to post now.Abcmaxx (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice expansion from 84 words to almost 800 words in about one day. This is obviously long enough to qualify now. No concerns regarding formatting and deployment of footnotes. (I gotta AGF all the non-English sources.) This is READY for RD to me. One small issue: The "Hairdresser" corruption scandal seems out of place in a section with "Legacy" in the header, and there isn't much info on this story. Can this be elaborated either in the article or in the linked article? Perhaps "Death and legacy" can be re-named "Personal life" and expanded to include info on birth (a good place to put a footnote for the DoB), upbringing and where he resided during his retirement before he died, etc.? Then this "scandal" would not look too out of place. --PFHLai (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Polish Wikipedia is much better on this topic which has been widely studied and written about. In a nutshell; the 70s-80s "Poland's golden squad" went onto running Polish football and its FA. In 2004 a man nickname "Fryzjer" ("hairdresser") was prosecuted for corruption and buying matches; turns out that the golden generation started and facilitated essentially a massive fraudulent and corrupt match-fixing mafia where the FA, and nearly every club player and coach in Poland for the last 30 years was involved. This guy was in that group, close associate of Lato, Boniek and Forbrich (the "hairderesser", ring-leader), and was almost certainly a central figure. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, Abcmaxx. Sounds like an interesting story that should be elaborated in Football in Poland#Corruption in Polish football, which is already linked from this wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be a standalone article ideally as on Polish wiki, which arguably could be split into more sub-articles, with the "hairdresser list" article" and an article on the man himself, all missing from English Wikipedia sadly. I shall do my best to try and rectify this one day, but as you can image, it took long enough just to get this RD up to scratch, never mind such a vast topic which could span easily a whole cluster of articles.Abcmaxx (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time, if you plan to work on that. For this particular wikibio, something to explain what the "Hairdresser corruption scandal" refers to would be helpful. As a reader, I was a little lost and frustrated there after clicking the wikilink and not getting any relevant info. Some info for readers unfamiliar with the scandal would be nice. --PFHLai (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we post this RD though before it becomes stale? Abcmaxx (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking/Waiting for support votes from (uninvolved) editors. --PFHLai (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support All sections and sentences are properly cited. This is ready to go. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Candidates Tournament 2022[edit]

Comment - there's some doubt about whether he actually will face Carlsen. Carlsen has previously said that he won't defend his title unless it's against Alireza Firouzja. — Amakuru (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, well-referenced and comprehensive – however, because it is not certain that Carlsen will defend his title, maybe the last four words "to face Magnus Carlsen" should be removed. (If Carlsen refuses to defend his title, the regulations state that Nepomniachtchi will face whoever takes 2nd in the Candidates, so he will be playing regardless.) Double sharp (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - do we normally post these in addition to the World Chess Championship? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. I just looked at ITN after the last three candidates and saw no sign we posted them. I'd suggest this doesn't rise to the level of significance for posting, (also not seeing much coverage in mainstream news outside of dedicated chess sites) and if we add anything then it should be the world rapid and blitz rather than this, which is just a ticket to a greater event... — Amakuru (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose firstly, not convinced this is ITN-worthy, as it isn't covered highly in mainstream sources (in their main news article sections). Secondly, the article has a lot of information on how people qualified for the event, which is fine, but only a table of results for the actual matches themselves. As with many sports articles, needs more prose about the event itself to meet the article quality threshold. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb amendment stroke to face Magnus Carlsen from the blurb as per above comments as not confirmed yet. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a big development is a widely covered sport/competition. I'm not convinced that the fact lots of news outlets bypassed this is a valid argument; lots of very significant events get missed all the time depending on where in the world you are. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be considered as "in the news" if it's not actually in any news articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per my comments above and Joseph2302. I follow developments in the chess world quite closely, so I was aware of this happening, but I think it's wider significance is not huge - it's a stepping stone to a very big event, in the world championship, but only that. We don't post the AFC Championship Game in American football for example, which is the gateway to the Super Bowl, or the 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification. I also think the omission of the story from mainstream media as a "breaking news" item is significant (most will probably cover it next weekend in their weekly chess sections). If they don't cover it then that means the world at large has deemed it not so significant, and it is WP:UNDUE and WP:OR to say we should be covering it. Finally, per Joseph, there will need to be prose added for the event itself it it's to meet the quality bar. — Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It doesn’t make a lot of sense to post the qualifying tournament when we will post the actual event when it occurs, subject to quality. Also, as the full template has not been used (who is the nominator?) there has been no evidence of news coverage provided, which is s requirement. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Not noticeably in the news. – Sca (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I understand why this was nominated, which is reasonable, and it has received media coverage (contrary to some of the comments above). But fundamentally it's the qualifying tournament for the world championship; we should post the latter instead, when it occurs. WP:ITNR has an average of 1.5 chess stories per year, plus we've posted additional blurbs when there has been a new world number one in the rankings. That seems about right for the level of public interest, so I don't see a need to post additional tournaments. Modest Genius ^talk 12:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I expect there will be more mainstream media reports once the tournament ends tomorrow. Currently Nepomniachtchi has an unassailable lead and has finished his matches, but there are a few others still to play their last games. Modest Genius ^talk 12:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I feel like this is akin to posting the semi-finals of the FIFA World Cup. Sure, it's super notable in its own right, and in the news, but it's a part of a more newsworthy topic. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Given that it's only a qualifying competition for a larger tournament Carter00000 (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

July 3[edit]

(Posted) RD: Clifford Alexander Jr.[edit]

Support This is ready to go. The lead it is a little bit short, but it is still enough. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Irving Abella[edit]

Long enough (500+ words), with footnotes deployed at expected spots, no concerns regarding formatting, and Earwig found nothing wrong with it, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 15:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Idelisa Bonnelly[edit]

Support While the article could go into a little depth about her academic contributions, it meets minimum standards and is well-referenced. Spencer^T•C 23:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Russian Capture of the Luhansk Oblast[edit]

Oppose the war is at ongoing, and we don't need to post every single event that happens in the war. Because ITN is not a news ticker for the war. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree that ITN should not be a ticker for the conflict (as it would likely be quickly overwhelmed), the capture of a whole Oblast is a major milestone in Russia's stated aims for the conflict. Carter00000 (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the major aims of Russia is reached. Hope they will stop the war now. Grimes2 (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping against hope?

Like other recent ~~Soviet~~, I mean Russian, captures of Ukrainian cities, this one doesn't seem pivotal or unexpected. -- Sca (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they do stop the war, or at least halt is with a temporary ceasefire, that would be worth posting on ITN. But speculating it may happen is not a reason to post this. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only time they'll stop is when they've grabbed all they can get. -- Sca (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, The war is ongoing and this does not seem to be a turning point. Alex-h (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The capture of a whole Oblast is a major milestone in Russia's stated aims for the conflict. While this is not a turning point, it should be considered a notable point in the overall conflict. Carter00000 (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  That argument would be more compelling if anything Putin says about his plans for the invasion was believable. The "aims" of the invasion have ranged from "denazifying" all of Ukraine to just "helping" separatists in Donbass and multiple contradictory goals were promoted simultaneously by Russian state actors and media. I would agree with you for example if one could reasonably (objectively) believe that this means the invasion is over. Regards So Why 18:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lysychansk is not particularly more important than, say Severodonetsk or Mariupol. Juxlos (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Lysychansk is significant, given that it is the last area to fall in a Oblast, prior to becoming fully under Russian control. Carter00000 (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  So is Kherson, and it has 3x the population. Mariupol has closer to 5x. “Last city in an administrative division” is an arbitrary line. Juxlos (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per previous opposition. – Sca (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support this is the kind of significant strategic update that is worth consideration beyond ongoing (as was Mariupol). The article is about the city of Lysychansk but it's clear from reliable sources that Russia now controls the entire oblast. Given that Russias main objective seems to be the Donbas this actually feels like a important albeit grim milestone. Weak because I'm not sure the proposed target article highlights the scope of the territory lost. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose covered by ongoing, and not a particularly notable capture. I would be open to blurbing if/when Russia succeeds in capturing the full Donbas region (i.e. Donetsk + Luhansk oblasts), as that was one of their stated initial goals. YD407OTZ (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose they started in 2014, its of no significant importance to the wider conflict and they only captured the last settlement as a result of a tactical retreat rather than any conquest, which means this is going to change so many times still. Also they have not "captured" anything; occupation is not the same as full control, at the moment even in Kherson which has been occupied since February they have not had full control yet. Furthermore the LPR isn't a real state, it's puppet quasi-state through Russian invention and we should be careful how we word these blurbs.Abcmaxx (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability and article quality, but rephrase blurb. With respect to notability, this is a major development in the Russo-Ukrainian war (it's a clear and stated goal of the Russian Federation) and the region itself is larger by landmass than fifty sovereign states. The argument above that "this does not seem to be a turning point" is something that we can only really evaluate by looking into a crystal ball, which of course we can't. We don't need to post every event in the war, but we should post the significant ones such as when an entire Oblast falls. The article also seems to be in good enough shape to post. That being said, it might be better to say Template:Tqb than the current blurb; most sources seem to be framing it this way rather than crediting the LPR with taking the city. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as nominator. Added the suggested blurb above as altblurb. Carter00000 (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I won't go as far as some of the above commentary to presume the significance of this event (apparently ITN/C seems to be full of military strategists), but ongoing should cover most of what's going on here.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Major milestone in the invasion, especially with an unrecognized state (the Luhansk People's Republic) capturing all of its claimed territories. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So far there is no concrete indication this is actually an important milestone for anyone, and it is covered by the ongoing article. Yakikaki (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: James M. Bardeen[edit]

Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just on a point of order re death announcement date, according to [57] his obituary was published in the NY Times on June 26. I can't find the original article online, but the obit was reproduced on legacy.com on that same day. — Amakuru (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least the wikibio was readied and the nomination was posted here within 7 days of that publication. --PFHLai (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah fair enough, I'm just quibbling for no reason really. Support — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, you have a fair point there. This is indeed a late nom. We can reject this nom for the lateness. Considering how few solid RD noms we get these days, let's be nice (and bend the rules a little bit) and put this on ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could understand me or another regular cantankerous fart calling the recent death noms' fortitude into question, but you're the one who's been posting the most by far lately; if you don't mind me asking (nicely), what's up with that? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno ... in summer holiday mood? -- PFHLai (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a procedural issue, not as important as an issue with article quality. I guess... -- PFHLai (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll accept both guesses, thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! :-) -- PFHLai (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Karakalpak protests[edit]

Surprised this hasn't been commented on yet. Anyway Support for Original blurb Article seems to be in good shape. The "Protests" section could use some more expansion, but that should be taken care of as more info comes out. Mount Patagonia (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support surprised not to see this nominated earlier. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support large protests in an authoritarian country are clearly important. Article looks good enough to post. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nataev ^talk 11:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Given that the Government of Uzbekistan has already withdrawn the plans which caused the unrest after a few days of the unrest. Unlikely for the unrest to continue or increase in intensity. Carter00000 (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that people managed to get an authoritarian leader to do what they want is significant. And this isn't stale unlike most of the current ITN items.... Joseph2302 (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Malikxan ^talk 13:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Original blurb, it is in the news and article seems fine, so really no complaints there. I find that the alt blurbs are too wordy though. 🌈 4🧚‍♂am KING 👑 13:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, A major event, and article is good. Alex-h (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for quality typical disaster stub. The protests section itself is very short the infobox claims 18 killed and the article simply references non-specific "protesters had attempted to storm government buildings". Did the deaths occur while storming a government building or during the protests the day before? Which government building(s)? Needs a lot more detail to be MP ready. Assuming they were killed protesting and not while unlawfully storming a government building then support any blurb which excludes the word "deadly". Just do our standard "At least X people are killed during Y in Z place" that we use for all the disaster stubs. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. There is consensus that this can be promoted. I needed a replacement item for the 2022 San Antonio trailer deaths article as that is in a state of mess. This seemed the best one on offer. -- Schwede66 01:21, 2022 July 5 (UTC)
- Wait what? You pulled an article that's fine except for needing some expansion on the "investigation" which is ongoing and replaced it with a piece of trash that doesn't even explain where these supposed 18 casualties took place? How does that make sense? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Copenhagen shooting[edit]

Oppose not notable except as an example of the failure of Denmarks very strict gun control laws unless terrorism is determined to be a cause we shouldn't post crime blotter. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining exactly why it's notable! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well... Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 22:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3 dead and 3 wounded critically is frankly a testament to those very strict gun control laws working. That barely makes the news in the USA. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The US has 25 times as many firearm homicides per capita as Denmark. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting fact! And in Denmark the shooter used a hunting rifle, instead of the standard AR15 here in the States. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Article is currently a stub. It doesn't even have the number of dead in it yet. Wait until reliable sources pick up on this, and we can expand it further and further. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 20:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. It's obvious that it's notorious in a country whose crime levels are very low in a continent where mass shootings are very rare. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Until we know how many have died. Rest in Peace to all the victims. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree we need to get more detail but this, like the recent Oslo shootings, is inherently notable in a Denmark where mass shootings are in single digits in their country's entire history. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this assessment; mass shootings are never inherently notable merely because of where it took place. Nonetheless, it seems like this is an incident of terrorism. If that turns out to be the case, then it should be posted. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they are. If mass shootings are as rare as rocking horse shit then they are immediately notable. Just as the opposite applies. Regardless of whether this is terrorism or not, multiple deaths in a mass shooting in a country (like many) where mass shootings practically never happen is notable enough. Plus being widely reported in RS around the world, so no doubt at all to the suitability for ITN. Just needs a quality update. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for quality improvements and precise figures, but support on notability. Denmark, not unlike Norway, has one of the lowest intentional homicide rates in the world. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to pile this one, but with some reported death in a country that rarely has violent attacks, this is definitely ITN material, but it really needs expansion. Wait. --Masem (t) 22:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- if only three people have died, and there's no overarching motive, then there's no reason to post this. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't deduced a motive yet. They're still treating it as a terrorism-related incident. Masem (t) 01:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who you mean by "they", but "Police chief Soeren Thomassen said there was no indication that the shooting was an act of terror". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier reports were, but I have seen they have stepped back away from that claim since I posted that comment above. Masem (t) 12:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Denmark has only had three mass shootings in its history that in total have killed 7 people. This is hardly notable enough for ITN. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because it's not important enough & the article is too short. It looks like it was a lone attacker & there's no indication of the shooting having an ideological motive. That makes it a lot less notable than attacks carried out by international terrorist groups. The death toll is three; we'd never post a mass shooting with a death toll that low if it happened in Africa, Asia or the Americas, unless at least one of the victims was very notable. We shouldn't post it just because it's rare in its country of occurrence. We wouldn't post a minor earthquake in a country which rarely has earthquakes. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Wait – Fairly widely covered because it's Europe, but per AP lacks significance as shooter acted alone, was mentally troubled. – Sca (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd tend to see anyone who kills three people in a mass shooting in a shopping centre as "mentally troubled". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was only three. We all have bad days now & then. -- Sca (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're lucky. "In wikispace, no one can hear you scream" (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Things are in the news because they are remarkable which is why "man bites dog" is news and "dog bites man" usually is not. A mass shooting in a country which has no real history of such crimes (three in total according to ElijahPepe above) is notable even if the crime were non-notable in a country where such events are commonplace. And we regularly post such events even in the US where they occur basically every day. Regards So Why 12:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't post US shootings with death tolls this low. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an agreed global number, or does it vary by country? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, five. In the U.S. 50. -- Sca (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is exactly my point. In the US, three people being shot in a mall is "just another Monday" (a dog biting a man, if you so wish). But it's not in Denmark. PS: Denmark has only 1.5% of the population that the US has, so three people dead there would equal ~200 dead in the US. That is, if one were measuring news by the amount of people dead alone. *shrug* Regards So Why 13:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of population density Denmark is ranked 92 (346 per sqmi), but US is ranked 185 (88 per sqmi). So theoretically it's much easier to kill more people, from a single shooting point, in Denmark than in the US? But I guess shopping malls may be equally crowded in both countries. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And in Ukraine. -- Sca (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Given the extreme rarity of such events in Denmark.Carter00000 (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support In principle, once destubbed. The last time anything on this scale happened in Denmark was in 2015 and before that you would have go to the 1985 Copenhagen bombings, clearly a significant event, given it's wide-ranging media coverage. Comparing this to a random US shooting is a stupid comparison. 🌈 4🧚‍♂am KING 👑 13:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, oppose on quality this is in all the mainstream news media, it is unusual because this is a country where gun violence is uncommon. Denmark isn't the US where mass shootings are commonplace and barely newsworthy. That being said, the article needs more information to satisfy the article quality requirements of ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the 21st century, no country is an island, entire of itself. That it's news in DK, home of hygge, doesn't make it generally significant, or for that matter even particularly interesting. -- Sca (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that, unlike Greenland, Denmark is not an island. Even Trump doesn't want to buy it. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it was the top news stories on multiple non-Danish news website, such as the BBC (UK edition) for over 12 hours. That's significant international coverage of the event. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Shooter charged with murder, despite his history. One of the six wounded in critical. This is possibly more serious. (Changed vote to wait.) – Sca (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the past decade there have been 529 fatal shootings in Denmark. In the past 2 days there have been 632 fatal shootings in the US. Yet some still think that a mass shooting in Denmark is not newsworthy?? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's just that three isn't a "mass." But the discussion continues. -- Sca (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's wrong. Many definitions of a "mass shooting" consider three to be the minimum. But never mind. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three or more may not be the question because the "mass" can also refer to all the victims, not just those who died (cf. mass shooting). But then again, in the end, the question is not up to us but up to reliable sources and they seem to classify it as a mass shooting. Although even if they did not, it would not make it less newsworthy. Regards So Why 18:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hat

Comment Denmark has very strict gun control laws that couldn't prevent a mass shooting so either their society is a cesspool of violent depravity and they want mass shootings or gun control doesn't work. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or would that be a cesspool of depraved violence? -- Sca (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control works: In the past decade there have been 529 fatal shootings in Denmark. In the past 2 days there have been 632 fatal shootings in the US. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to adjust that seemingly nonsensical and inflammatory piece of non-logic? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't do that. Instead, 316 shootings per day in the US (no real gun control) vs 0.14 shootings per day in Denmark (real gun control). I know math can be tricky, but hopefully this helps. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Those stupid Danes have no constitutional rights!" (Is that inflammatory and non-logical enough?) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the UK, where they have constitution at all. -- Sca (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to support this item, but almost 24 hours after its nomination, all I see is a bare bones stub article and the typical ITNC nonsense about how this one is notable and American shootings are not because of statistics and other unhelpful remarks. Say what you will about American shootings, our nominated ITNC articles are fleshed out by this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Praxidicae below. It's nearly beyond a stub now but really should be better than this by now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support significant event that has worldwide coverage but I wish the article were significantly better quality. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment have added some more content, way better than a stub now, and I believe it has sufficient article quality. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak-to-modest Support on the basis that this is a major event in a local (and European) context. Quantitatively, this is not "major" by global standards, but that this was the "largest mass shooting in the country's history" is noteworthy. Not often news gets to say "most deadly". Template:U's point about "man bites dog" is well-taken too. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's tied with the 2015 one for deaths, but smaller in wounded, area, duration, guns and information. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only two were murdered in 2015. Nfitz (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and three were shot to death. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - rare event with significant international coverage. I can't find any mention of a similar death toll this century (or last century to be honest). Nfitz (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is nowhere near good enough to be posted. Notability is questionable unless there are any new significant developments, which would need to be added to the article Belugsump (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a globally significant event. Can someone explain why the 2022 Oslo shooting was posted, but not this one? Thriley (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oslo shooting was an act of terrorism against a gay pride parade. What the hell is "globally significant" anyway and where do the guidelines stipulate it as a requirement? I keep hearing about it but on one can tell me what it means. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exotic demographics aside, that one also had over 20 victims. But this one might still be posted, too. For being Danish, if anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say any country that has the deadliest mass shooting since World War II is globally significant. We posted ITNs from other countries, that aren't even the biggest shooting of the month - let alone century. Nfitz (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already told you three people were killed in the one 70 years after the war, so I doubt that will change your mind, but will still tell you again. If we start disqualifying legally excusable killings, that'll drastically lessen the impact of military showdown, protest crackdown and psychotic breakdown blurbs. You want that? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem rather poor form to be including the death of the shooter in the number of deaths in order to elevate the significance of a mass shooting. Particularly when the death toll isn't final yet. Nfitz (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about elevating significance, it's about reflecting reality. Death is the great equalizer, bullets don't care and sometimes those who live by the gun die by the gun. February 15, 2015, was one of those times and that article's infobox uses the standard inclusive form of basic human accounting to say so. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry to be callous and of course it's a tragedy, but the death toll is quite low so doesn't seem significant in the long run. And just because it's a country with few guns, doesn't mean we automatically post. — Amakuru (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, crime with a relatively low death toll. Sandstein 08:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

July 2[edit]

(Posted) RD: Miguel Etchecolatz[edit]

The article is well-referenced as a whole with no noticable issues except for the first paragraph in the Return to democracy section, which doesn't have a citation (particularly the bit about him being sentenced to 23 years). Overall I would say I support the RD but only on the condition that this is changed. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - No doubt this article has any issues. But additions are required as per Dunutubble's request.

Prodrummer619 (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the citation I've added sufficient? --VersaceSpace 🌃 01:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Full support Template:U I've added a cn tag in that first paragraph. Can you fix it with a source? The article is almost ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added one. --VersaceSpace 🌃 22:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! Thanks. Marking ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Alain de Cadenet[edit]

Long enough to qualify (500+ words). No formatting issues. Footnotes can be found where they are expected. And, Earwig has found nothing wrong. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Anarchyte (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Attention, please.] RD: Dmitry Kolker[edit]

Comment: The Russian wiki may have some information that could be used to expand the article,, including an image. Article also has a bare url and is still stub tagged. Anarchyte (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: This wikibio has 300+ words of prose and technically long enough to qualify as an non-stub. I have to AGF all the non-English refs, but footnotes can indeed be found at expected spots. Formatting looks okay -- dates and other attributes in the non-English refs would be good things to add. This seems to be a passable RD nom, but I am hesitant to post this on MainPage because the materials on his career as a scientist or laser research engineer are rather thin. His recent arrest from his deathbed and subsequent demise seem to take up quite a bit of space in this wikibio that the coverage of his life now seems imbalanced. Perhaps another admin can look at this, please. Can more materials on his research on laser be added, please? --PFHLai (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: David Blackwood[edit]

Support Short but adequate, referenced. Marking ready. Spencer^T•C 23:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Peter Brook[edit]

Thank you for the nomination of one of greatest English directors ever. I would have done it later, I'm not done yet updating. Adding myself to the updaters. - Many helped, just the name Khardan is not in the recent history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sourced now. Satis. Grimes2 (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are an updater, thank you very much. I think the article could still be better - we miss Jeanne Moreau ... but I have a few other things waiting. Good enough from my pov. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment References required for the last paragraph of the Shakespeare section, and the lists of his works. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are summarily sourced at the top of Works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see the two sources given (one is based on a book already sourced, the Kustow work, so could be better formmated to support that), but just needs better indication that those refs are meant to cover the works. The language used in the opening sentence of that H2 section isn't clear that those cover the works. Easily fixable and that seems to be the only quality issue for posting. --Masem (t) 13:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I understand the first bit. The second, I tried to reword now, but feel free to write yourself what you think would be clearer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is anything missing?? - 62k+ looked already, - how do we look if we bring "him" so late? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks fine to me, once I saw the general references for works. Posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tone (talk • contribs) 12:02, 2022 July 6 (UTC)
- Reviewers and their support votes were missing. But we don't need them now. This nom is already posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - What can I do next time to attract them? This was the hardest of the year to do, and I was proud of having succeeded, and it was supported 2 days ago. Then what? It's long, so reviewers may be hesitant? - I do hope that it will not happen again that two of these giants die on consecutive days, - it's exhausting, sorry. I'd like credits for all, for the record. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems that participation is lower these days. There are fewer editors posting comments across ITN/C. Not just for RD noms. Time for a summer break? Not sure... --PFHLai (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this was posted...I never got the notification. --VersaceSpace 🌃 05:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now notified. -- PFHLai (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Andy Goram[edit]

Obviously long enough to qualify (2000+ words), with no formatting issues or concerns regarding the deployment of footnotes (A few more footnotes in the Honours section would be nice, though.), and with no problems identified by Earwig, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I might have some concerns with "Honours" section (regarding citations) but this is easily fixable and this article is ready to go. MarioJump83 (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Vladimir Zelenko[edit]

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

Comment There is a CN in the personal life section, as well as some concerns with WP:WEIGHT (with the most of article dedicating to COVID-19 claims), given the controversial topic being involved. This article could be ready to go but I want to see this being resolved first. MarioJump83 (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the unsourced sentence, as I couldn't find anything about Zelenko being a Haredi orthodox Jew, although many sources do mention he was an orthodox Jew. Second, I do not believe there are any issues with WP:WEIGHT, most coverage about this person relates to COVID. Do you have any ideas for dealing with this? --VersaceSpace 🌃 16:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the policy, actually it is fair because of what had been represented in most reliable coverage about the subject, my mistake. The idea is to keep it mostly what it is, but with some notes below. MarioJump83 (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Issues are mostly resolved though I recommend to keep an eye on undue weight or non-neutral viewpoints. I have checked this with Earwig and there is not much issues. Overall though, the article is good enough to qualify for RD. MarioJump83 (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 1[edit]

(Posted) RD: Joe Turkel[edit]

Long enough to qualify (400+ words of prose), with no concerns regarding formatting and the deployment of footnotes, and with nothing wrong found by Earwig, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article is ready to go. MarioJump83 (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A Shining example of a RD complete with updates and cites. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Richard Taruskin[edit]

Support Article is in good shape and well sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have now a Tim Page obit and what Brachmann wrote in FAZ. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 08:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Chief Executive of Hong Kong[edit]

Comment Glad to see the proposed blurb doesn't include that awkward word "elected". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But this transfer of power is the result of an election, just not a free one. Regardless I feel like the election itself would have been the bigger news story, and that got turned down from ITN because it was a sub-national one. (Even if WP:ITN/R guidelines allow for the posting of election results in dependant territories). 🌈 4🧚‍♂am KING 👑 21:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The election itself might have been the bigger news story if it had involved more than one candidate. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
oppose a non-election with no candidate field is basically like promoting an actual business CEO or homeowners association President (though that has an election...) and hardly news worthy, much less main page newsworthy. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Taiwan we've posted other not-a-country elections like Taiwan but we should call it what it was: an election. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's call it a selection -- that would be more accurate. -- Sca (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not being serious with that comparison. The Kip (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a spade a spade. Cf. Martin 's comments above. -- Sca (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it anything else than an election - which objectively what happened regardless of the politics around it or the lack of candidates or how it was handled - is an NPOV violation. The issue with the "election" can be included in the article proper (with proper sourcing and attribution). Masem (t) 14:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reality shouldn't be ignored. Wiktionary:
(1) A process of choosing a leader, members of parliament, councillors or other representatives by popular vote.

(2) The choice of a leader or representative by popular vote.
-- Sca (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yeah, just like that 1989 incident of mindless tank damage. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subnational and not particularly notable. The Kip (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator. There is precedent for placing the HK CE in ITN, as this was done for the previous CE [[Posted_Hong_Kong_Chief_Executive_election]]. There also seemed to be a degree of consensus in the nomination for the election results, given that an "attention needed" tag was placed on the nomination. [[58]] Carter00000 (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just like the old proverb... "Nothing succeeds like (wholly undemocratic forced totalitarian) success"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Parochial. Lacks general significance. Little or nothing will change. – Sca (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We cannot consider this as an election or notable. Alex-h (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support He ran unopposed in the 2022 Hong Kong Chief Executive election (added an altblurb linking to it), but it was a transfer of power nonetheless, and there's precedent for posting about Hong Kong. I ask the oppose !voters to avoid arguments about the election being undemocratic in nature. Most countries that have elections aren't actually democracies, but we still post about their so-called elections. See also: Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Russia, etc. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: 2022 Hong Kong Chief Executive election took place two months ago and too long ago to be considered current enough for posting on ITN (within 7 days or less). Please consider a focus on the change in leadership, which just happened days ago. --PFHLai (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's true, we could instead bold John Lee instead of bolding the election. We could also mention his government or include a mention of him being the only China-approved candidate. I'd still want to include a link to the election article in the blurb as it's relevant to his succession of Carrie Lam. Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, either would be more current. The rest of the blurb, well, my suggestion would be keeping it simple and concise on MainPage. Save the details in the article. Getting into a protracted debate about choice of vocabulary in the blurb may mean that a consensus can't be reached before eligibility runs out. Good luck. --PFHLai (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as nominator. Suggest that we could also bold the office/title as an alternative. This would preclude mentioning of the election, given that it has passed already.
Comment as nominator. Template:Reply to Pinging users who may be interested in supporting. Carter00000 (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... FYI, your pinging may be biased, bordering on votestacking/campaigning. Be mindful of WP:CANVAS. – robertsky (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noted on the relevant policy, and will be mindful of WP:CANVAS in future.

Template:Reply to Pinging other users who may be interested in expressing their views as per previous ITN nomination. Carter00000 (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Randomly pinging people because you think they might vote for it is annoying. If I wanted to vote on this, I would have done so already, I don't appreciate being randomly pinged about tbis. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need not ping me, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ITN doesn't post subnational elections unless something truly unusual's happened, and ITN doesn't ever post post-election inaugurations. There's no reason for this to be an exception on either count. Oppose. —Cryptic 06:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's standard to post the election, not the succession. Banedon (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Sca points out, someone may need to "adjust" the definition wikt:election. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regardless of the legitimacy of the "election", this is sub-national. I'm pretty sure, for example, that if Mark Drakeford resigned tomorrow and was replaced by another MS, we wouldn't post it. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A token handover (hate to use that word in relation to HK) to a hand picked politician who was not elected is not what we usually do. Not to mention that sub-national leaders don't normally get covered here either, same as we don't feature every time they change the Governor of Gibraltar for example. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Consensus against. Ain't gonna fly. – Sca (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Given the events of Hong Kong in recent years, unfortunately this leadership handover, unlike the Yair Lapid one, is not going to be that consequential. MarioJump83 (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not an election, not a sovereign country, only de jure self-rule but de facto a Chinese government official nominated to a province. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Technoblade[edit]

Why am I mentioned here? VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 08:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, meets criteria for RD, but it could be improved a little bit (and this article got a lot of attention). Personally seeing this news is shocking. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are there no coverage of the subject before mid-2021? Juxlos (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There has been. See the article for examples of 2021 sources. VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 10:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, very well known personality with (now) plenty of reliable sources. Sad that so many of those sources only exist as a result of his death and as a result we have an article now but couldn't justify one while he was alive. Waggers TALK 11:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re It definitely is sad. That seems to be the way, sometimes. Template:Smiley TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support May be biased as a main contributor of the article, but he is a popular internet personality (his death was #1 trending on YT) and there are plenty of sources now (plus suggested sources from 2021). Also for the other reasons above. VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 11:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, notable personality. Surprised that the article has only just been created, Technoblade was listed on the Dream SMP article since 2021, and seems as notable on his own as a Minecraft player and youtuber. Very sad. Salpynx (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with his death being #1 on YouTube trending, I want to pay my respects all to him and his family, it has to be hard times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preston52110 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality the article is correctly orange-tagged as needing expansion. Article quality is the only consideration for posting on RD, and this article is too short and non comprehensive. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my ignorance, but is this about a real person? – Sca (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Yes, "Technoblade" was his online pseudonym. Anarchyte (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. – Sca (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The page is very NSFW due to extensive vandalism. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the recent history, I'm only seeing one account adding nonsense, and someone has blocked that. While "stability" should be there, we discount vandalism as a quality issue since that's beyond normal editing control. (Obviously, vandalism needs to be removed before posting). --Masem (t) 13:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Template:Ping article is now ECP. Anarchyte (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's my impression that the topic will tend to attract especially sophisticated and motivated vandals. And I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing turns out to be an attention-seeking hoax. We don't need this aggravation. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - We have RSes like the BBC reporting on this, and given the video statement from his father, it is very very very unlikely this is a hoax. We should not presume anything like that given the source quality. If it was only coming out of a source like dotesports.com, yes, I would be potentially suspicious as well, but that's not here in this case. --Masem (t) 17:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not seeing why this should be treated any differently from anyone else we've put here, just because they have a large online presence shouldn't discourage us from giving them tribute here, nor does it give us the right to speculate if the person is pulling a hoax (which judging by the evidence doesn't seem to be the case). Captain Galaxy 18:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The BBC says "Little is known about Technoblade, who kept his true identity concealed until the end". This still sounds fake. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Why? He was a YouTuber, not a member of the civil service. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." We work with reliable sources -- such as the one you're using in that comment which talks about it as genuine -- not on editors' vague hunches. Strewth. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 22:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. Subpar sourcing and orange tagged. No opposition to it going onto the main page after this is resolved. Anarchyte (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re It is no longer orange tagged and sources have improved to include The Washington Post among other RS. Could you please take another look? TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support one unsourced claim which could use either citation or removal pending such cite, but otherwise just fine. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much of the article is cited to secondary sources, but those sources are only repeating the subject's claims with attribution to him. This is problematic given the subject has admitted to providing false information. Even his name "Alexander" is not cited. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His name is cited in the article and coverage has expanded to include CNN, The Washington Post, NBC, Kotaku, etc. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - on notability. CR-1-AB (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a policy-based vote: Template:Tq Joseph2302 (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Technoblade is notable on a higher degree. CR-1-AB (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Technoblade is notable on a higher or any degree is not relevant when it comes to !voting Support or Oppose for RD noms here on ITN/C. Focus on article quality and MainPage readiness, please. --PFHLai (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think I am satisfied with the progress that has been made on the article over the past day. Looks ready to go. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's quite a bit of chat about sourcing/WP:SYNTH on the talkpage. We shouldn't post this unless there's consensus that the article is fine for that, otherwise it violates article quality requirement for ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re The only talk of synth on the talk page was me clarifying a policy misunderstanding another editor had and that section has been resolved. It appears that sourcing concerns raised on the talk page have been resolved? TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Many problems persist on this article. Until the article reaches C-class, oppose. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not unprecedented for start-class articles to be posted to ITN. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C-class is not considered a requirement for posting. WaltCip-(talk) 17:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C-class is not a requirement for ITN, but this article needs copyediting and checks for flow to be free from WP:RECENTISM. Once those issues are fixed, support. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article does not need a copyedit to go RD, and considering this article has received a massive amount of quality changes only recently I don't think it needs it. Not to mention, despite the entire creation of the article spawning from his death, recentism is not an issue here as there is enough cited information about his career to counterweight information about his death. Captain Galaxy 22:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Template:U here. The pushback that this has been getting is just bizarre and largely, at least for the latter comments, unfounded. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For those who still oppose based on quality, can you provide some issues the article still has? I'm more than willing to work on the article more if that is what is necessary. The discussions regarding synth and unreliable sources have been resolved already and there are no maintenance tags. Link20XX (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support No significant tags and over-the-top attention among the MC community (including me).

interstate five 16:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Article is well sourced, no major problems. Yeeno (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not seeing any underlying or obvious quality issues that should discredit this article. With all issues seemingly resolved, I see no problem in posting this now. Captain Galaxy 17:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do not see a problem with this article being posted now as its issues seem to be resolved. Good work to all those who have edited to address them. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. The main issues surrounding the article and being debated seem to have been resolved. Johnson524 (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for my usual reason in these cases (with due deference to any friends or relatives); if they weren't notable enough to have an article while they were alive (and therefore would fail the RD rules), dying doesn't push them over the line. And, er, oh yeah - I don't like to mention this, but he's faked his death before (please let this not be the case this time, if you know what I mean). Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Faked his death before? Can you tell me more about this, say by linking to something reliable? A diehard editor (talk | edits) 18:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The lack of an article before does not imply notability only related to death. A subject's death, however, may encourage the creation of an article. In this case in specific, there was a "Technoblade" draft already present when the target article was created, it simply lacked enough information to be published. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The sudden ease of source availability (read: front page stuff) and the widespread coverage that this has received would also presumably incentivize participation and work on improving the article, as happens elsewhere on the 'pedia. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is also an admittedly bizarre accusation to make (that this is faked) without any proof as Template:U noted further up. That's like an WP:OR version of WP:CRYSTAL, if that's even possible. It isn't one or two RSes that would be being duped right now, but dozens. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this sentiment regarding Kevin Samuels which didn't have an article in Wikipedia prior to his death - sans faking his death. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very disturbing to read those curious users who are claiming (using their own original research I assume) that this is a hoax when RS like BBC, CNN, Varsity, Sky News, ABC, Yahoo etc are all reporting this death. Also curious to see some users suggesting we don't post items on the main page in case they attract unwanted attention. This place.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost certainly not a hoax, you are right; but let's face it, this is a guy whose full name we dont even know... Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never heard of this guy before, but I looked through the r/technoblade subreddit yesterday, and a few eagle-eyed fans spotted an obituary with his full name that appeared in a local newspaper before his death was officially announced. While obviously not WP:RS, that's enough to make the chances of this being a hoax 0%. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The news is being reported in multiple RS across the world. That his article is new isn't relevant. Plus perhaps those surprised we don't know his real name are from a "certain generation" who aren't used to the idea of people on YouTube operating their entire careers under a pseudonym.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notable, seems to be of ok quality, rest in peace Alex. Diverging Diamond (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - People, respectable people, are claiming this might be a hoax? Seriously? Gosh, why even post any death at all on ITN then, if we are going to apply the same logic that we use for sports retirements. Unbelievable. WaltCip-(talk) 20:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very clearly legitimate:

Some of Tech's closest friends such as Dream have acknowledged the death on Twitter and the hashtag #technobladeneverdies is currently trending on that platform.

On Reddit, multiple threads have been made about his death, such as on r/MinecraftMemes, r/DreamWasTaken, r/HypixelSkyblock, and many other subreddits.

On the server Hypixel, there is a tribute where players can add their signatures, as stated by the server owner himself.^[4]

Besides all of this, the article has solid sources, no obviously glaring problems (as far as I'm concerned), and I can definitely see this on the front page considering how much of a ripple this event has caused over the Internet.

Template:Reflist-talk 172.112.210.32 (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm shocked this hasn't been posted yet. Sure, article is new, but the guy was part of the most popular Minecraft series on Twitch and he had 10 million subscribers at the time of his death. + #technobladeneverdies and other Technoblade related phrases have been trending on Twitter all day and the BBC, CNN and the NYT all are reporting this. KingOfAllThings ^{(thou shalt chatter!)} 00:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article quality has definitely improved, can't see any major issues XxLuckyCxX (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article quality is good, long enough, well cited, and respectful as regards to the subject's family. RIP. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 02:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not much to add, I think it's great how quickly the article has improved from nothing to something, and I'm proud of all the editors who've worked so hard on this. PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pull and send to WP:AFD Classic WP:NOTNEWS violation, also see WP:109PAPERS and WP:LASTING, of which this article has none. 47.23.40.14 (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP can, by all means, AFD this. But the "109" examples is bullshit, this individual's death and prior notability is easily established through the myriad RS here. Next. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not feed the trolls. --PFHLai (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive bottom

(Posted) RD: Tjahjo Kumolo[edit]

Support Notable person in my country, I have heard him in the news from TV for quite a while long before his death. I have checked the sourcing and the article is fine. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Notable minister and figure. I support his article to be listed on recent death list. ~~~~ Mmnashrullah (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the line "served two terms in the DPR between 1987 and 1997" - needs a cite. Once that's fixed, good to go for RD. I wouldn't support a blurb though. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (cited in body). Juxlos (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Yair Lapid becomes Prime Minister of Israel[edit]