Wikipedia : In the news/Candidates/June 2021

Support - I don't see any major flaw in the sourcing.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 21:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Marginally notable person with little news coverage. While it technically meets the requirements, it's marginal. 1779Days (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supports and Opposes to RD nominations should be based on article quality, not notability. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1779Days, Please, read Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Voicing_an_opinion_on_an_item before voicing your opinion. Regards. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 23:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks fine, no tags. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/Minor suggestions: This article could use a few more refs and footnotes for various points regarding her career in academia (e.g. being chair, co-founding a department, etc.) Also need consistent vocabulary (is she "Dean" (in the prose) or the "Rector" (in the infobox) of the Jakarta Institute of the Arts"? Should her poem's English title be "Calon Arang: the Story of A Woman Victimized by Patriarchy" (in the prose) or "Calon Arang : the story of a woman sacrificed to patriarchy" (in the list of publications)? Or are they actually two different poems?) --PFHLai (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good enough for RD. Have marked as ready. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted I've also moved my minor questions at Talk:Toeti Heraty. Not big enough problems to halt this RD nom. --PFHLai (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

47th G7 summit[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 June 12 Template:Cob

Is this WP:ITNR? Kind of feels like it should be if it isn't, but I can also understand if it's mostly publicity these days. My support/oppose is based on the answer to that question. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, ITNR at Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items#Economic and political summits. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose still some citation issues and the article being tagged. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think those are fixed now. --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 18:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article quality issues have been fixedJackattack1597 (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now There's no update. For instance, the 1 billion COVID vaccine pledge and Taiwan Strait call for peace listed in the proposed blurbs are not mentioned in the article. The "Agenda" section talks about what will happen, but not was has happened. Another specific example is Template:Tq Well, did they? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 20:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support added a blurb which included the discussed measures from a week ago that ITN decided to postpone until the end of the summit. Article quality could be better but I think it's acceptable as is. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose vaccine pledges, taiwan strait, net zero were all announced by various G7 members prior to the summit. (Most coverage being on the US and a lesser extent UK vaccine and environment pledges). so what is the news? Albertaont (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing at all in there about what actually happened. Is this a joke, question??/ The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all of the above, needs way more text on what the outcomes/main discussions there were. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ― Not ready. STSC (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 12[edit]

(Posted) RD: Getatchew Haile[edit]

Died on the 10th. Step hen 00:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Need a bit more on his death than just putting the date of death in a bracket next to his date of birth on the first line of the article. --PFHLai (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping Text has been updated and cited. Joofjoof (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Sanchari Vijay[edit]

Comment quite a bit of the filmography still needs sourcing. Once that's fixed, looks good enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Milton Moses Ginsberg[edit]

Oppose Given the lag between his death and reporting it suggests he is not really that notable enough for ITN, consider the New York Times at the beginning of the article noted he fell "into obscurity". Govvy (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone with an article is presumed to meet the notability requirement for RD, votes should only be based on article quality.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And even if this was based on notability, it's not measured by how quickly a grieving family chooses to go public.—Bagumba (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason to oppose. Uses x (leave me a message) 20:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, did you see the ref issues? SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 03:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SirEdimon I don't know what you're referring to. That comment only makes mention of notability which isn't needed for ITN/RD. Uses x (leave me a message) 06:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re all tags have now been addressed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now sufficient for RD JW 1961^Talk 09:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mudcat Grant[edit]

Support - Well-sourced.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 05:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two-time All-Star pitcher. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Christian Eriksen heart attack[edit]

I think it should be "Danish footballer Christian Eriksen collapses during a match against Finland at the UEFA Euro 2020 tournament". Giant Snowman 19:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In which case support. Giant Snowman 19:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He collapsed, but he's in stable condition. No impact beyond a suspended match. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from it being front-page news across the world? Giant Snowman 19:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know that there's more to In The News than getting picked up in a 24 hour news cycle. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Muboshgu. Not palpably important if you aren't into football. He is alert and conscious, so it's not like he's on death's door. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - thankfully this turned out not to be as grave as it first appeared. I'm very happy this isn't sufficiently notable for ITN. --LukeSurl^t c 20:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Finland's 1:0 victory may be more significant than this scary episode of medical drama on the pitch. Has Finland ever won at this tourney? --PFHLai (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It was highly disturbing and serious, but it is not front page material for us here at Wikipedia. I think we all know what would be. doktorb _words^deeds 20:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose assuming he gets better, there will be no long term impact of this. The teams playing the rest of the game today and Finland winning will (hopefully) be the highlight everyone remembers. But this isn't ITN worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is an example of "ITN is not a news ticker." Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thankfully he seems to have gotten somewhat better, so it really doesn't have long term significance. I don't believe we posted a similar incident in the FA cup in 2012.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Igor Zhelezovski[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 June 11 Template:Cob

Oppose There is no ~~mention of~~ source for his death in the article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A source has now been added in the article. According to the source, he died of COVID. Count Iblis (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article is not good. It is just a giant lead section, then some tables. In addition, it is sparsely referenced. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 11[edit]

Support Don't see any issue with notability, and the articles are decent. Also, would anybody else be interested in trying to put the Pullitzers in ITNR? ( The main issue with ITNR is that they are US based, so that might be a major obstacle)Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ALT1 is of the correct standard format for ITN blurbs for annual events. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably, if we were comparing this to other awards, the 2021 awards article is literally just tables without any description. Just checking the refs related to this year's prizes there's at least something to write about the delay, as well as about the special award to the teenager that captured the George Floyd video. --Masem (t) 20:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – In the first two proposed blurbs, the comma between journalism and going (" ...journalism, going...") isn't U.S. English punctuation practice, may confuse U.S. readers, and should be dropped. (Also, suggest "American" be replaced by "U.S." as more specific.) – Sca (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. The article almost completely consists of tables containing quotes about the winners and we cannot post it in such shape given the number of other articles that were denied because of the same reason. I'm also unsure about its notability and the choice of putting The New York Times in the blurb when Darnella Frazier's recording of the murder of George Floyd makes bigger news. I've checked that the last time we posted this prize was in 2014 and before it in 2010, which clearly indicates that it's not a standard ITN material for some reason. That being said, I'd like to support a blurb mentioning Darnella Frazier instead of The New York Times once the article is substantially improved with a prose update. Otherwise, outright oppose because the routine awarding of this prize is not that notable.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note/comment: I've struck the first blurb per Joseph and changed "American" to "U.S." per Sca. The comma between "journalism" and "going" is correct; it marks off the middle clause. I added a little more broad characterization of the awards, so the article is plenty well-developed now; it's a quasi-list, as the main thing to say about the awards is who won them, but that's fine. The board's own descriptions which we quote contain plenty of info. I disagree that the Fraser citation is the most significant—it's not even a formal Pulitzer, just a special citation, and it's not what the news coverage has focused most on. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT/ALT2 as ready to post as nom. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Comm(a)ent – The comma between "journalism" and "going" is not correct in U.S. English. If I'm not mistaken, this punctuation is British English practice, ergo ENGVAR. As this is a U.S.-oriented item, U.S.-English punctuation – which wouild definitely not countenance an intervening comma at this point – should be followed and the comma deleted. I'll bet my (retired) journalist's hat on that. TNX. – Sca (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
english was my worst subject when i was a student, and i confuse british and u.s. english practices all the time, but i had interpreted "the top honor in U.S. journalism" as a nonrestrictive appositive, which, i believe, is generally set apart by commas in both english variants. i don't have a journalist's hat to bet, though. also, i agree with using "U.S." instead of "American". dying (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
English was my best subject, from first grade to getting my reporter's hat to whatever I'm doing now. It's a perfectly cromulent comma. And that's coming from a Canadian, bilingual in British and American. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No journalist, but a once-English teacher, both Brit and Am. That comma is correct, feel free to debate the one between "awarded" and "with", though. Kingsif (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't, compadre, as there was no textual reason to pause there. But since the offending original blurb has been stricken and Alt1 revised, the point is now moot. Such a relief. – Sca (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The appositive can be either separated with two or without commas and leaving one comma is incorrect. This is a rule in all Indo-European languages.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catching up on this thread. Just for my knowledge, what is the consensus on the comma between 'awarded' and 'with'? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anything but Alt II The New York Times is a single entity, no matter what letter its name ends on, or how many people it employs. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm not sure who added that alt, but since it's a simple grammar matter, I'm going to change the "their coverage" to "its coverage". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, that "with" is extranabulous, sufficiently implied by its little buddy, the comma. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So little prose? Was kind of expecting some mention of the first ever Pulitzers for The Atlantic and for BuzzFeed News. Maybe a bit more on the kid with the phone video on Floyd and Chauvin, or reactions of some of the finalists and winners. --PFHLai (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added a sentence about the firsts. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this needs to be posted soon if it's going to be. All of the major blurb/article concerns from above have been addressed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do we use quotes this way in other ITN articles? WP:NPS seems to apply. Without the quotes, this article is only 703 characters long. Joofjoof (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. The article is not of sufficient quality for posting and we have denied many articles in similar shape. I don't know why you got the impression that this is ready for posting when it's clearly not and there's not even consensus for it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Re Yes—look at our Nobel articles, where we do a very similar thing. That's another case where the quotes are brief and are an official component of the award itself. The article is plenty comprehensive—the main thing to say about the awards is who got them, so of course that's what the vast majority of the article focuses on. Do we complain when list pages are quite short if you ignore the list itself? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That said, I would only include the full quotes for the winners; the nominees we can at least reference the events indicated by the quotes. --Masem (t) 17:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ei-ichi Negishi[edit]

Support Meets quality standards. Grimes2 (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: UEFA Euro 2020[edit]

Oppose posting single sport events in progress to ongoing, as I always have. That was never the intention of Ongoing. This is also not a global event like the World Cup. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any sports item as ongoing except for the Olympics per past consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly sure we posted the World Cup; I disagree with that too, but it is at least a global event. 331dot (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do post the World Cup to ongoing, but that is due to its scale being more international, not just limited to one region. This can have its results ITNR, but it doesn't make sense to have a regional event ongoing. --Masem (t) 19:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World Cup is an uphill battle to fight. At least it does involve the entire world. UEFA European Championship not so much. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Wait until the end and post the result. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
oppose' sports are not ongoing the results (unfortunately) get posted at the end This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose maybe for the World Cup, but not Euros. Otherwise we'll end up forced to post Copa América too, as that starts this week. Wait til it ends, then nominate the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Too early to consider May be more supportive if a surprise team such as North Macedonia wins the tourney. --PFHLai (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because usually only the result of the final is important enough to post. Jim Michael (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ongoing for any sports event besides the Olympics and possibly the world cup.Suggest a WP:SNOW close. Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ashok Panagariya[edit]

Support Looks good --Vacant0 (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Geoffrey Edelsten[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 June 10 Template:Cob

Support well-cited --Vacant0 (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 10[edit]

(Posted) RD: Larisa Shoygu[edit]

Support The wikibio looks ready. It would be great if someone familiar with Russia could take a look to check if proper vocabulary is used. --PFHLai (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Buddhadeb Dasgupta[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 June 9 Template:Cob

Comment films and awards sections need citing, as does Family section. For someone with so many appearances and awards, there must also be more to be said about his career. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 9[edit]

RD: Helmud Hontong[edit]

Comment: Please address the Template:Tl tag atop the wikipage and the error messages in the reference section (formatting errors?). Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to Wikipedia:In the news/Recent deaths, if death of a figure is it's main story or main attention, then it worths a blurb. Helmud Hontong was not a well-known figure until his sudden death which raised speculation and request for investigation by activists. Does that mean this could merit a blurb on it's own? Nyanardsan (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re Hi, there is an unwritten consensus by regulars in here that death blurbs are only given to subjects that has a significant level of global influence. As far as I know Hontong was the deputy regent of Sangihe, meaning that his influence is just above the kecamatan and below regency. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, thanks for clarifying~ Nyanardsan (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a gap in coverage, with hardly any materials on his political career as a legislator and then as vice-regent. Apart from winning 3 elections, what happened between 2009 and his recent opposition to the mine developments? --PFHLai (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gottfried Böhm[edit]

Template:ITN candidate Thank you very much for the nomination. I feel he should have more detail, but am busy today until Monday. There's much more in German if someone is less busy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good now --Vacant0 (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good to go, marked as ready. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian presidential election[edit]

Template:Archive-top Template:ITN candidate

Comment Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh is correctly orange-tagged as needing more sources- this will need to be fixed. Also the presidential article is a micro-stub, would need to be significantly improved before it could be considered good enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't mind possible ITNRs being posted here so as to call attention to them for improvement, but as others have said this would need a lot of work to be Main Page eligible. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose been 4 days, and doesn't look like anyone is going to fix the issues I raised. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Replyto I've been working on it, but clearly cannot do it alone. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ring-shaped sunrise[edit]

Support Article is sufficient, prefer Alt 2. --Jayron 32 18:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at the moment. I get the rare astronomical confluence element, but even the GIF provided gives our readers precisely ZERO idea as to what they might actually "see", and that's the bottom line here. This isn't a mathematical moment, it's a human experience. Without demonstrating why that might be significant, this is a dead duck. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the image to an eclipse of very similar configuration to Toronto's view and a caption should say similar eclipse pictured or something like that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a better image, but is this really such a remarkable celestial event that it needs us to promote it? I know we went on for what felt like months about the last one, but this is just one of those things, right? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Given this is an annual eclipse, and the only part making this unusual is that it is going to be witnessed by a good chunk of en.wiki-using readers, that feels awfully specific to make into an ITN. --Masem (t) 18:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "annual," but rather "annular," which means shaped like a ring. You can probably think of an impolite word with the same root. Jehochman ^Talk 18:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or just Annulus (mathematics). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be fascinated to know that the JU-88's liquid-cooled V-12 engines had annular radiators that made them look like air-cooled radials. – Sca (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

However, even then, looking at the navbox at the article these annular eclipse are nearly annual events (less a year or so at times). If we're only getting excited about it because its going to be in the viewing range of the bulk of en.wiki's readership, that's a potential bias issue. --Masem (t) 19:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A total solar eclipse occurs somewhere on Earth once every 1 or 2 years. (average), they only average once in 4 centuries cause the 100% zone is thin. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support for quality and the reasons cited. Jehochman ^Talk 18:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"quality"? The article is basically a stub followed by a huge "see also" section. It's pretty grim to be fair. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most eclipse articles are like that, then they get updated with an image farm if Europe, North America, Australia or South Asia got a good view. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I appreciate that. Perhaps that's why it's not really an encyclopdic thing. Just an image of something over which not one soul to have lived or dies has control, and with literally no precursor or consequence. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Comet Holmes posted? That was just a fuzzy star, and not a bright one, I could barely see the fuzz with me eyeglasses from a dark alley. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was Comet Holmes posted? I don't know. Was Comet Holmes something lots of people can see from Earth every year or so? I don't know. You tell me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A comet of at least that level of visibility averages once every decade or more often (I think we might be in a comet drought, not sure). A comet about one or 2 steps brighter is ITNR and happens once every decade or 2. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so that makes this seem rather meh. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the article should be deleted? There's cricket articles which stimulate fans who can appreciate all the box scores and history and jargon and abbreviations and stuff and just because they bore most non-Commonwealth people doesn't mean they should be deleted. Same thing, a non-genius who teaches himself the jargon and abbreviations and moon cycles and stuff can visualize a lot more about the shadow geometry and stuff from that boring stub than you might think and it'd probably be easier to learn than all the stuff in a Test series article. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mean it should be deleted. It's clearly "notable" but in a kind of "trivial" sense, i.e. this will happen and there's nothing we can do about it and nothing important about it and nothing of long-lasting value about it. The thing we have here is a "look it up" in an almanac kind of story. Comparing it to a cricket article, which includes significant human interaction, seems bizarre in extremis, but perhaps that's what you need to do to get some attention for this? Comparing the utterly predictable motion of planets and the subsequent "impact" on us Earth-dwellers vs. events which have genuine human interest seems strange to me. YMMV, of course. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea how boring Test is to many Americans do you? Britney Spears and Madonna surprising everyone by lesbian French kissing on live USA-wide TV had lots of human interaction and viewers and interest (arousing the celebrity fans and inflaming the squarest Bush fans helped). Post hot kiss lol?In 2009 a comet being barely naked eye in wildernesses and maybe farm country was enough to get posted, apparently that happens about once a year (but ITN was pretty ancient then) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a very comprehensive understanding on how boring "Test" (I think you mean Test cricket) is to Americans. And likewise, baseball is utterly shit, but hey, we are all interested in different things. But you brought up cricket, and now Britney/Madonna. None of these things were governed exclusively by physics. They all had a human interest. This story is just, well, blocks of mass moving per the law. Yell about ITN for all it's worth, that's not helpful at all. It's cute, don't get me wrong, but whatever. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of astronomy is just blocks of mass moving per physics. Heck a lot of cricket and baseball is blocks of mass moving (after some skill-weighted human dice bowled or made contact, heck some physicists think even the scores, blinks and thoughts were preordained since Big Bang) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Per Masem, TRM. How does this ephemeral phenomenon affect life on Earth? – Sca (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks cool and it's the darkest eclipse in place so and so since year X, that's all an eclipse story ever will be, I guess we should stop posting total sun eclipses too then cause they're inevitable. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it looks cool, I guess that makes it an ITN shoo-in. – Sca (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Total solar eclipses don't affect life on Earth either, but they're ITNR. Banedon (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If the current blurbs were very stale I'd give it a weak support because it does no harm, but considering the oldest blurb is only 5 days old it lacks significance. Uses x (leave me a message) 22:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The annular eclipse will be visible from very unfortunate parts of the world that are scarcely populated. Yet it's a very good ITN material, the fact that barely a few million people can experience the view brings its notability down. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't much appearance coolness drop from the 94% ringrise of the deserted places to the 80 to 86+% crescentrise of c. 35 million plus people. I saw the most impressive horizon eclipse since I was born in '13 by blinking at Manhattan skyline and at 55% it was much less cool-looking than the 80%+ of this eclipse. There was a deeper one in 1994 (90%) but it was close to overhead (and made the sunlight look pretty dark). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, these parts are very unfortunate if we're looking to sell out a show, but at least the water and air is mostly water and air up here. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It must be nice to be able to live where you can make loud love in nature sometimes and not have to drive so long before you stop worrying about voyeur. That's one of the first things I'd do if I reincarnate the right place. Well first thing after childhood. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to spoil your romantic perceptions of the North, but there's a very small temporal window for decent natural exposure, between the bitter cold and perverted flying insects. Best to even party like outdoor nerds wearing the proper protection. I saw a sweet green meteor in rural pajama pants twelve days ago, all by myself, whoopee? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S Support Alt III We know what's good, Milkster and J-Dogs, but we're clearly outnumbered. Awakening is futile. For the record, I was wearing the rural pajama pants, the meteor was bathed in its usual drapery. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support not rare events, but then neither are total solar eclipses, and if we have those on ITNR then this should be posted also. Banedon (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the likelihood of this post seems to be growing; your modest effort has moved me to Weak oppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand the passionate opposes here. The article at this moment is not great, but it's a good bit better than our routine disaster articles. It's wonky, yes, and some more human aspect of it would improve it. The event is in the news. I guess I'd suggest a POTD nomination for this, particularly for the crescent sunrise images.130.233.213.61 (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support iff we have cool pics of the eclipse to show on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, conditions can change. Thanks for the reminder! Swayed my vote accordingly. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, I think that Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Celestial_events could possibly be considered to cover annular eclipses (and I personally think it we should add this unambiguously to ITNR, but that's a discussion for elsewhere). Ellipses are interesting, encyclopaedic, and make a nice change from stories about death. We'll have to see if the article is decent post-eclipse, which may not happen given how remote the eclipse path mostly is. Critically, we need a few good pictures and at least one that is main-page quality. --LukeSurl^t c 09:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality this article has one paragraph of text about the event. The lead also needs tense updating. If one paragraph is all that can be said about it, then it's not ITN-worthy. And the "Related eclipses" section seems ridiculously long, and some of them seem only tangentially related to this event. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of eclipse cycles, cycles are very important in astronomy. i.e. the Moon's (line of) apsides move forwards at 1 orbit per 8.85 years which is important as the apogee side of the line of apsides doesn't make total solar eclipses, it's ascending and descending nodes move backwards at 1 orbit per 18.61 years (draconic period) thus the eclipse year is 346 days and June eclipses, May eclipses etc occur once every 9.305ish years. And the line of nodes and line of apsides cross each other every c. 6 years which is when coronas and sun rings can last more than a few minutes. Every few years the solar eclipses start partial and polar, then get better then tropical then the other pole then partial, this is the 2018-21 thing in the "related eclipses". And of course the lunar eclipses do something similar but 180 degrees out of phase. The new and full moons repeat every 19 years (which is the Metonic cycle of "related eclipses": eclipses obviously must occur in multiples of 29.53059 days (lunar month) or half month and the whole number of lunar months that's closest to a small amount of whole years is 235 (=19 years), 8 years is also kind of close, thus 16 too (3 years is off by 3 or 4 days but enough to make 8 yrs better than 9), 38, 57, 76, and 76+8=84 years which is also very close, the Moon's orbit is 27.3 days (sidereal month) eclipse cycles like Saros align with this. Saros is 18 years and 10.32 or 11.32 days (depending on leap days, 4 or 5?), in summary there are lots of eclipse cycles and the closest analogy I know to something popular is octaves and fifths and fourths and major and minor thirds and other just intonations of small whole number ratios in music with consecutive eclipses being like quarter tones or semitones, closest but most dissonant/dissimilar. The many concurrent cycles are useful for various purposes and named after Ancient Mesopotamian, Mesomerican and maybe Greco-Roman words since those people just happened to be good at discovering astronomy cycles so they get weird names like inex and tzolkinex. The first surviving records of saroses are Ancient Neo-Babylonian thus the scientific community uses their name. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of which are reasons why it's interesting, but not reasons for why a one paragraph article should be put on the front page of Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Interesting event. STSC (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it's interesting quality content on Wikipedia that is in the news. NorthernFalcon (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support If only for the reason that gatekeeping at ITN is why ITN grows stale so often, so quickly. It's current, it's in the news, it's worth a mention surely. doktorb _words^deeds 00:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vermont for Illustration Speaks for itself, just look at it, amazing. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All proposed blurbs say "annular", yet none of the proposed pics shows "annular". No ring? Can someone craft a blurb that will go well with one of the pics, please? Thanks. The pic with the Statue of Liberty is already protected. Are we using this pic? If not, please get that protected first. --PFHLai (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 6/10/2021 eclipse category of Wikipedia Commons had no ring pics. I took a shot at a blurb.Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a struggle to find pictures of the annulus even on media sites which can pay for copyrighted images. It seems the path was just very very remote. --LukeSurl^t c 04:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's not mention "annular" in the blurb. Whether it was annular or deep or... depends on where on Earth it was observed. Is blurb4 acceptable, please? Too simple and uninformative? --PFHLai (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do 10 June people still say June 10th? Then that might be a compromise with 10 June or 10th June (does anyone say that?). 2. The photo was taken roughly a mile from any part of New York State which some might consider misleading. Some people don't know this but the Statue of Liberty is only New York cause the law doesn't follow the geography, it's 1.5 miles from the NY mainland, 1 mile from the nearest island of the NY half of the harbor, half mile from the NJ mainland and slightly further to the nearest NY water but they made a tiny hole in New Jersey that is not Jersey just so NY can rep the statue. So the tip of her copper hair is about 230 feet northeast and 270 feet above the closest Jersey water. Otherwise sure why not, blurb 4. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would the modified blurb 4 by any better, Sagittarian Milky Way? --PFHLai (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PFHLai: Yes, seems good, probably change to June 10th though as that seems to be less uncommon in the UK than June 10 while Americans don't mind the th. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not as cool as the Vermont pic, but cool enough! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The statue pic was supposed to be 0.203 or 0.204 Sun diameters showing but there was a crap-ton of scattered clouds in the NYC area around mid-eclipse. Toronto got even deeper eclipse than Vermont and 2 vids from Canada were put on Wikipedia Commons (Canada's only contribution to the June '21 eclipse category). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And very late Canada suddenly decided to upload 7 more files. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sorry but I'm just not seeing the general newsworthiness of this. WaltCip-(talk) 11:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is that what "In the News" is about? Thanks for splaining. – Sca (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe. You could make the argument that my !vote is WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. WaltCip-(talk) 13:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it cuz 'twas raining – cudn't see it. – Sca (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have questioned this posting at WP:ERRORS, as the article quality is insufficient. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and consensus to post such a stubby article was by no means clear at all. Suggest this is removed until we can generate more information than in a stub and reduce that dreadful "see also" section to something akin to an encyclopedic article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Joseph2302, you asked "why was it posted?" on WP:ERRORS. Well, it was good enough to me for ITN. It wasn't great, but it was good enough. "Barely" good enough. ITN was getting stale on a slow news day. Looking for anything not bad on ITN/C and this was the only one there that was "ready". The nice pics helped. I consider them part of the updating. --PFHLai (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pulled I'm afraid per the above, and WP:ERRORS. Quality concerns, particularly around length, haven't been addressed yet. — Amakuru (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a seriously ill omen. At least for my people. It's never coming back, folks, we tried! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Just add a bit more detail to the article, including some actual news and reactions to the event that weren't already known about 10,000 years ago, and I'll be the first to post it back up again. — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I looked at the main page this morning and admired the photo of the eclipse (right), which was especially effective. Now I see that it has been pulled to restore an inferior photo which has already been up for days. But notice that the eclipse article has already gotten five times the readership of the older blurb. Our readers don't care how much prose such articles have. What matters are the pictures and the eclipse is winning. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the nth time, ITN is not WP:TOP25. Perhaps you should start an RFC to make it that way as you continually appear to want that. Commons is for pretty pictures, Wikipedia is for encyclopedic articles whose content should be more than a stub and an ridiculously over-blown "see also" section. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't appreciate the arithmetic and geometry that makes chronologically distant eclipses rhyme but there is a well-made well-referenced non-stub on eclipse cycles with prose, tables and Jean Meeus references, he's like a world expert on astronomical calculations, this isn't just something someone made up to pad the article. The lede of eclipse cycle has a very helpful NASA animation of the single-eclipse maps of solar saros 136 to explain (#136 since the series of 2873-1593 BC)). Adjacent ones (223 lunar months apart) are very alike, slowly evolving over a millennium and change (graze of the penguins or polar bears to direct hit of the tropics to graze of the other cold). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PPP comment – This sort of 'celestial' mini-event gets stale fast. Pulling it was a good move. – Sca (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is done. Suggest closing the discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 17:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally close when the objections are mainly on quality. I'm not holding my breath, but it might yet be fleshed out sufficiently to warrant a re-post. — Amakuru (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article is a gallery and stats dump, definitely not suitable for the MP. There isn't really much more to say about the event - almost no inhabited locations saw the annular phase, so it's all just photos of a partial eclipse. Those are always nice to see, and I was pleased to see the event myself, but not of much encyclopaedic value. Modest Genius ^talk 14:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive-bottom

(Closed) Bitcoin legal tender in El Salvador[edit]

Template:Archive-top Template:ITN candidate

Weak support I'm usually pretty open on allowing all sorts of blurbs, but a small country that doesn't have its own currency is naming a non-currency as a legal tender? This seems like a pretty small-potatoes level story. I won't object or stand in the way of it being posted, the article is fine, and this has been covered by reliable sources, but it's not really a significant story. This is really not a big deal. --Jayron 32 14:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article in good shape and this seems to be making global headlines. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support it's a country that has the US dollar as its currency rather than its own currency anyway. But there is lots of news coverage of this event nevertheless. And makes sense to put it on ITN now, even though it doesn't become an official currency for 90 days. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. A strange move, but a potentially significant one. The article is brief but sufficient. I would have liked to see more of the response/commentary that's being reported in the media, but that's not a requirement. Should the blurb say this is the first cryptocurrency to become legal tender, or did somewhere else adopt a non-Bitcoin version before? If this is the first cryptocurrency of any form, I would prefer to just say that in the blurb, rather than advertising Bitcoin itself. Modest Genius ^talk 16:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While this is certainly in the news, I don't necessarily see the significance of it. Quite frankly, it sounds more like a PR stunt (as mentioned in the article). -- Calidum 16:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly significant milestone in the history of cryptocurrencies, as the first ever nation to adopt one. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NorthernFalcon The article doesn't mention it, but the Petro and the digital renminbi are government backed cryptocurrencies that already exist. The digital renminbi is officially legal tender. Uses x (leave me a message) 17:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The digital renminbi isn't a cryptocurrency, and given that it's value is tied to the renminbi, I don't count it as a separate currency. Likewise, the "Petro" has a value that is tied to something else that has its own market value. That said, it would be notable for Bitcoin (as the largest cryptocurrency) to gain legal tender status anywhere in the world. Furthermore, in my opinion any country changing or altering its currency would be notable enough for ITN. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking it up you're correct, thank you. Still, they're functionally equivalent so I still don't see the significance of this - the difference between a digital currency and a cryptocurrency is that crypto is decentralised and anonymous, and it works in a different way accordingly. [Investopedia] But still, functionally equivalent. Uses x (leave me a message) 18:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ Definitely in the news, but we should remember that we don't necessarily post everything in the news, even if it's getting lots of coverage, if it's not significant. Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because other countries have made official cryptocurrencies, and this isn't that significant in the grand scheme of things. Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not significant, as it's just a politician politicking. I don't expect people in a country with a nominal GDP of $4,041 and an underdeveloped technology sector to pay the high transaction fees or even be able to use it for transactions (i.e. the entire point of making it a currency), and people could already use it as a medium to invest. Uses x (leave me a message) 16:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this isn't the first country to make cryptocurrency an official currency. Venezuela has the Petro (no success there), China is developing and testing a digital yuan, etc. What's special about Bitcoin that differentiates itself from these? Uses x (leave me a message) 17:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very brave decision and certainly a huge milestone in the history of cryptocurrencies. Putting everything aside, this is the first designation of a decentralised cryptocurrency as legal tender.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A blurb needs to be suggested without "the first country to ...", as Template:Green - Wikipedia:In_the_news#Blurbs. Uses x (leave me a message) 17:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In a situation like this, being first *is* the news story, El Salv. being the first country to accept crypto. Its similar to when we had headlines along the lines of "first country to recognize gay marriage" or the like. The news is about crypto being accepted for the first time by any national government, not so much El Salv.'s specific role to it. --Masem (t) 18:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  First decentralised cryptocurrency. I've named two cryptocurrencies above that were the firsts. Anyway, it's implied that it's 'the first' just by being in a blurb, so it doesn't need to be stated. If it weren't the first it wouldn't even be considered. Uses x (leave me a message) 18:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, its the first non-govt' developed crypto, or first crypto to be adapted by a govt. However, in the case of the blurb, if we just left it as "El Salvador designates Bitcoin as legal tender.", while true and implicitly suggests a first, it undervalues why that story is in the news, and would imply to readers that if other countries later opt to use crypto that we'd announce them too. Being the first (with those cavaets) is the story here and needs to be explicitly stated, and that does mean we likely will never post the second country that follows suit. Whether we need to clarify that this was the first external/decentralized crypto, I dunno, but "the first" is critical here. --Masem (t) 19:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Not yet. Bitcoin will start becoming legal tender 90 days after the publication of the law in the official gazette. - EugεnS¡m¡on 20:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. A notable first, with substantial news coverage. Davey2116 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support first is first, and it's a decision that (theoretically at least) affects everyone in El Salvador. Banedon (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. The article has one section: History. And much of that has nothing to do with history.130.233.213.61 (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It doesn't change anything in practice, and is it really ITN-worthy tech news that the most popular crytpocurrency has become national currency until El Salvadorians accidentally screw up its value? I'd post the bitcoin exchange rate going wild, but like the petro, this is really a non-story until something actually changes to either ES or bitcoin. Kingsif (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per previous two posts, plus lack of general significance and thin RS coverage. – Sca (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Notable event. STSC (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose- The law is not effective yet. Change the wording along the lines of "El Salvador passes a law having decentralised cryptocurrency as legal tender, the first country to do so".

Preceding posted by IP user 73.111.22.127 at 05:00, 11 June 2021. – Sca (talk)

Comment – Getting stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive-bottom

(Posted) RD: Ann Russell Miller[edit]

Support short but sufficient. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The article is barely not a stub article but still on the short side. Is there a way to expand the article with the obits coming in? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted RD. TJMSmith (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tilly Hirst[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 June 8 Template:Cob

Support quality is sufficient. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 03:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 8[edit]

(Posted) RD: Richard R. Ernst[edit]

Support career could be expanding maybe, but more than good enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 03:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Juno flyby of Ganymede[edit]

comment: this appears to be the last destination of junoTemplate:'s first mission extension, so i would personally consider it falling within the scope of itn/r. (to save others a click, itn/r states "Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations".) the bolded article does not appear to have been updated since the flyby, though, with its last edit performed days ago. the other article has one update, which simply added the photo above. dying (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be ITNR to me. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting event, decent article JW 1961^Talk 09:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as ITNR, article is fine. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The update is very thin, but in principle, it is a nice ITN story plus a great picture. Any chance the update could be extended to a short paragraph? Also, are we going to blurb each moon flyby, since other moons are planned? Asking in advance. --Tone 09:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, though this is not ITNR - Ganymede was not an original target of the mission (the flyby was added for gravity assist purposes, when they had engine problems that prevented them from getting to to intended orbit of Jupiter). However the update is insufficient. The Juno article has one sentence and one image (diff), with most of that article on completely different topics. I think the bold link should be the Ganymede article, which is what readers will want to learn about. However the only update there is the same image, no prose at all. We should add a paragraph to Ganymede_(moon)#Exploration and use that as the target. Modest Genius ^talk 10:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an altblurb and started work on Ganymede_(moon)#Exploration, but don't have time to finish an update now. I'll come back later today if no-one else does it. Modest Genius ^talk 11:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted without an emboldened link to "Gannymede". Please let us know when you have finished your planned update there and the link can be emboldened as well then. Thanks --PFHLai (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - At the time the blurb was posted, there was already a more substantial update at Ganymede_(moon)#Completed_flybys (3 sentences) than in the Juno article (one sentence). That remains the case. Modest Genius ^talk 10:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you, Template:U, for pointing this out. My mistake there. I have changed the bolding from Juno to Ganymede in the blurb. --PFHLai (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Great, thanks Template:U! Modest Genius ^talk 10:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Farhad Humayun[edit]

Support Looks to be all sourced and ready.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The "Career" section could use a copyedit. --PFHLai (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Template:U gave the career section a go at copyediting. Please have a look. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping I also gave the prose some copyediting. Please check and make sure my editing did not change the meaning. I also put in two {cn} tags. The list of brands seems a little too long to be without sourcing. And please confirm the identity of his grandfather (see Talk:Farhad Humayun.) Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 06:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re thanks much. Looks good. Fixed the added CN tags including identify of grandfather. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good now, hopefully it can be posted soon as it is already pretty stale.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 U.S. Women's Open[edit]

I note via ITNR we already cover four major tennis events each year (include both the mens + womens events of each), so I don't know if the lesser competitions are necessarily appropriate for ITN. --Masem (t) 13:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U This is a golf tournament, not a tennis tournament. The men's equivalent of this tournament (U.S. Open (golf)) is ITNR, but no women's golf tournaments are ITNR. So definitely worth being nominated, to see if there's consensus to post. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, of the Women's major golf championships, it's the oldest, and gives the most prize money. So if any women's golf tournament will make the front page, it'll be this one. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crap, my bad, I missed it was the golf Open. There, given that the actual mens US Open is still two weeks away (such that these two tourneys are not connected like other mens/womens events) I would agree it should be considered as the top womens golf event, in terms of equity, since it clearly has international coverage. --Masem (t) 13:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's such a pity Yuka Saso's article is locked. She could've been the second Filipino athlete to be posted here (after Manny Pacquiao). Howard the Duck (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made/cleared the three pending edit requests on her page. --Masem (t) 14:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality would like to see a lot more text about the event itself e.g. text in the "Round summaries" section as well as just showing a scorecard. Especially on the playoff, as I'm not 100% clear on how it worked (I think they played two holes, then because it was still a tie, they played another hole?) Also, I'm very confused by what the numbers in brackets on the "Exemptions" section refer to- and they're not listed in the source. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability routine tournament in a very minor sport (unless you're from US) Abcmaxx (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a major, not a routine tournament, for the world's biggest women's tour in a pretty big sport. The vast majority of tournaments are won by non-Americans, including this one. 2 of the 5 majors are contested in Europe. There hasn't been a World #1 from the US since 2014; indeed, every #1 golfer since then has been Asian except for a New Zealander. Your statement simply makes no sense. -- Kicking222 (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Pretty big sport" - you sure we're talking golf right? It's a niche sport outside the US, regardless of where the competitors are from. World Tchoukball Championships are contested usually in Europe and East Asian teams win it but it does not make it a big international sport. Mobile phone throwing has competitors from all over the world too despite it originating in Finland, as do most sports. The "#1 golfer's" nationality is irrelevant. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Golf is not a niche sport outside the US, and besides, it has made an appearance at the Olympics. Your assertion that it's just a US thing is silly. That's like saying Soccer is just a European thing. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 03:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparing association football, the world's most popular sport to a minor sport played by a small handful of people in a small percentage of the globe. It's not a regular Olympic sport, and also polo and tug of war were in the Olympics too, again does not mark this event's notability. American football is played in Europe doesn't make it a global sport either. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First off, golf is one of ten most-watched sports on Earth. Second, though it's a relatively new addition, it's a "core" Olympics sport, so I don't have a clue what your point is. You have literally no idea what you're talking about. I mean, I hate golf, but at least I can look at it objectively. -- Kicking222 (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's ironic how this "US event" managed to have 3 non-Americans in the top 5, and 2 in the top 2. As well as the last 5 winners of this event are all non-American. Considering that the men's version is ITNR, there does seem to be some kind of logic problem here..... Joseph2302 (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gridiron Football absolutely is a global sport, but this is a silly conversation anyway, golf is a well-known sport, therefore, it should be listed in ITN -- and considering that the men's version of this is ITNR, this should be in here just to correct the gender imbalance on Wikipedia. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 16:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Gridiron Football absolutely is a global sport" honestly, I read a lot of nonsense on Wikipedia, but this is the cream on the biscuit. Good grief. Where else, other than the US and Canada, is "gridiron" even taken seriously as a "sport"?? We watch the Superbowl for the half-time nipples and pre-match fly-past... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's your definition of a "global sport", then? It's not just in the US and Canada that people play Gridiron football -- they play it professionally in Japan, China, and Mexico, and at the Collegiate level in the United Kingdom and South Korea as well. Considering that spans the globe, I think that qualifies as a global sport. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 20:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha, seriously? Let's start with "every other sport on Earth" and work our way back. At some point I recall you claimed to be studying post-grad degree, to somehow now claim that gridirion is global is frankly absurd. Oh well! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is wrong with you? Mocking other users' intelligence, seriously? Have you read WP:CIVIL lately? You're way over the line with this comment, pal. Mlb96 (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that TRM does not do well at is being civil. But I have a thick skin, so I don't really care what he says or thinks. Thank you for sticking up for me, I appreciate it. Also, I didn't realize that understanding the global impact of sports related to my doctoral work in computer science, but OK then. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 04:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think the point here is that when one makes outlandish assertions such as "gridiron being global" they need to be corrected. It is woefully misguided to think that anyone outside the US/Canada is interested in any real sense in that version of "football". It's a total fallacy. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm beginning to understand why you were desysopped all these years ago. --Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 15:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well done you, a proud moment I'm sure of it. And nice swerve away from the fallacy-pushing I guess, bravo! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And my god, your links are so embarrassing, I'm not sure why you thought they were relevant. Seriously? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gridiron football is not at all relevant to this nomination, and this whole thread should probably be hatted. Abcmaxx's idiosyncratic view that golf is not a major sport is probably not going to be much of a factor as to whether this gets posted. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. All such absurd irrelevant non-sequitur comments should be censored. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're relevant because you're making the claim that gridiron (not gridirion as you bizarrely spelled it) is not a global sport when it clearly is. As an aside, you're not even attacking my argument, just mocking it. Come up with a reason why my links are irrelevant in establishing that gridiron football is a global phenomenon, please. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 23:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The links speak for themselves. Honestly, this is amongst the funniest stuff I've read here this year, and it's still only June. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned before, all those things apply to e.g. tchoukball and mobile phone throwing; international top players from around the globe, played worldwide. American football isn't even popular in neighbouring Canada who share most league systems. Golf is mostly played, watched, hosted, broadcast and financed in the US; everywhere else it's either a minor sport or a very minor sport. Octopush and paintball is played at "collegiate level" in the UK too by the way. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sport was literally made in Scotland. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This, honestly, is the best response to the nonsense above, I've seen for an age. Template:U has been properly trouted! Thank you! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware, it how it got to the US in the 1st place, doesn't make it popular though does it? Even if for argument's sake we count the UK and Ireland and Japan having a "big" golf following, it's still tiny, it's even in the article: Golf#Popularity. By that logic we should be including all sorts of competitions from all sports, not picking ones that happen to adhere to Anglo-Saxon tastes. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And we do!! Good grief. Go read WP:ITNR. Wow, you ARE ALL MISSING THE POINT these days. But hey, just yell about shit and it makes no difference. Mis-apply logic or reinforce the systemic bias we see here, "Anglo-Saxon taste" for the love of "god". Ridiculous. Have your fun. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is fine. As always with sports nominations, the real problem is that it's just a list of names and score tables. Uses x (leave me a message) 22:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- the men's version of this is ITNR, the women's version is notable too. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 03:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ITNR thus uses quality as its only defining parameter. You support this set of stats? Honestly. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support if updated. It's insane to claim this is a niche sport only popular in the US, particularly when the two golfers in the playoff were from the Philippines and Japan. -- Calidum 16:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it doesn't really matter about significance vs the men's tournament or anything else, the article has basically no prose. It's a list of results. Those supporting this kind of thing need to take a long hard look at what ITN is trying to do here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality No prose summaries and a tediously long "exemptions to qualifying" section mean this is nowhere near ready. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle but prose is needed for the final round, at a minimum.—Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I decline to evaluate this nom till the article has some prose on the final round and the playoff. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Template:U or another editor is actually going to add some prose to this article, it's never going to be accepted on ITN. And if one more thing is accepted at ITN, then this will be stale (i.e. older than the oldest content on ITN front page). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at this point, this is obviously not going to make it to ITN before it becomes stale. Can someone close this? I would, but I'm too involved. --Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 17:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just needs someone who supports it already (!) to actually bring it up to a bare minimum quality. Seems that's not of interest though. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any interest in golf or any sports at all, really. The only sport I ever played was soccer when I was little. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 18:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) ANOM sting operation[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 June 7 Template:Cob

Comment In such cases, the outcome is what matters the most, not the very fact that the operation took place, so notability should be assessed based on some figures.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Added altblurb, though more verbose. Brandmeister^talk 12:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article uses "organised" rather than "organized", so I don't think the blurb should just be defaulting to US English spellings. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support altblurb. This seems like a well-coordinated large-scale operation with outcome that justifies the efforts.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Favor Alt2. More than 800 arrests. Leads many RS sites. Seems quite a coup for int'l law enforcement. – Sca (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt Notable large scale law enforcement operation that should mention the results.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Individual convictions in the future are unlikely to be notable. – Sca (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support as long as "organized" is changed to "organised" to match the spellings in the article. This is notable enough, and article is good enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Article seems to be missing a key fact, the number of arrests. – Sca (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. Brandmeister^talk 14:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blurbs are missing mention of the app – which criminals believed to be entirely secure. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The action and results constitute the news. Readers can learn about the (complex) app. in the article. – Sca (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Many news articles explicitly point out that this is the first time a sting like this has been successfully perpetrated for such a long time and especially mention the ingenuity of essentially running a messenger service for criminals in order to entrap them. In fact, the whole article is named for this very app and the article heavily focuses on ANOM's creation and distribution. Not mentioning it in the blurb seems counterintuitive to say the least. Regards So Why 19:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt3 as the article is now fully cited, has most of the information that's out there, and the event is significant and doesn't happen often, certainly at least by this method. Uses x (leave me a message) 19:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree alt3 is better as it gives info about the mechanism. Uses x (leave me a message) 20:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I added a third altblurb that mentions the network which I think is relevant (it is prominently mentioned in all news reports after all, including those sources mentioned in the nom). Regards So Why 19:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is one of the moste spectacular law enforcement operations in recent times, with far-reaching consequences for both the fight against organized crime and the struggle to maintain individual privacy in a world of ompipresent surveillance. -- The Anome (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
support. event is obviously notable as explained above, and article is of good quality considering it was started today. however, the crux of the notability focuses on the fact that the messaging application was a ruse, which is not mentioned in the first three blurb proposals, and may be misleadingly described in the fourth, as it is unclear if the network is appropriately described as an "encrypted device network" if it deliberately allowed law enforcement to intercept its communications, regardless of whether or not the network actually used encryption.Template:Pbto address this issue, i have further muddled the blurb choices with alternative blurb iv. note that i have used "secure" instead of "encrypted", since it is arguable whether or not it was the latter, but it was definitely not the former. dying (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 23:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appreciate not having the word "organized/organised" in the blurb. Less drama that way -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 23:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here from the main page. When I saw the current blurb, I had to check the article to know which parts of the world were involved. "International" could encompass everything from two countries to two hundred. In my opinion, it's a bit too vague—"global" or "worldwide" might be better. In fact, I think "involving x countries throughout the world" or some variant thereof would be best. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed the wording from "international" to "multinational" which still captures the breadth of countries involved without implying 200+ countries involved. --Masem (t) 05:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Template:Ping I think you may have misunderstood my previous comment. I was actually trying to imply that the term "international" could convey a smaller scale than what had transpired, not that it was overstated. Kurtis ^(talk) 18:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - In terms of blurb space, we don't really have room to get into the number of countries involved. "Global/worldwide" implies large a scope given that this was mostly the US, European and Australian agencies at play. "Multinational" implies "more than 2" but not "every country", and at least for the blurb, the reader can follow the link to learn more which countries did support it. --Masem (t) 18:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Understood. Thanks for clarifying. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment – Introductory clause – Using information obtained from a compromised encrypted device network, – seems overly long and complex for at-a-glance ITN reading, IMO. – Sca (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Made an attempt to fix it by removing wordy: "information obtained from" - Fuzheado | Talk 18:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That reads considerably better. TNX. – Sca (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 7[edit]

(Posted) RD: Yoo Sang-chul[edit]

Oppose looks like it hasn't yet been improved. There must be much more that can be said about his career. "Managerial career" section needs more sources. Also, [18] says he played 125 times for S Korea, not 124. And no sources anywhere in the article so far as I can see that support the fact he played for the S Korea Olympic (U23) or B teams (although they may be in the non-English sources). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article has now been updated. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria censorship of Twitter[edit]

Comment Has received major international attention, but should probably be its own article if it's going to be linked on the Main Page. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no requirement for a separate article and I would strongly discourage this. The separate "Censorship of Twitter" page is already sufficiently separate for this purpose, just needs a proper expansion for this specific incident in Nigeria. --Masem (t) 17:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support getting significant global press coverage and it's related to a significant political issue (Biafra independence movement). The segment on Nigeria in the article is well-cited. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, an important development in Nigerian political culture. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ for now. I'm mixed on notability, but it certainly needs to be longer than three paragraphs. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded it a bit. Still meh on notability, but considering the rest of the content it's just enough in terms of length. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Receiving quite a lot of RS press coverage and international condemnation. The Censorship of Twitter target article is sufficient & not in poor shape. I like that the original blurb is concise, but I am not opposed to any of the alternatives. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly Support Nigeria has one of the largest, if not the largest, Twitter user base in Africa, so the government banning it would have made it notable even without it getting so much attention. While I'm a bit weary about the article choice, it is serviceable in the absence of a full article on this dispute (although there are one or two "citation needed" tags that needto be addressed). Prefer to go with Original blurb for its conciseness. Mount Patagonia (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Twitter's been banned numerous times in various locations. I can't recall if we posted the Turkish banning, or the Pakistani banning, but these sorts of things seem to be routine for the industry. Additionally, it's perverse to make the story about Twitter instead of the actual underlying story.130.233.213.61 (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not call editors perverts – we are all working together here. And personally, I think both of the president's actions – threatening violence and subsequently restricting his citizens' internet access and free speech – are reprehensible, but only one has been deemed to be notable by the outside world. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: perverse. The proposed bold link also makes clear that this is almost routine for this company.130.233.213.61 (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Seems largely parochial, lacking wider significance. – Sca (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This would make Twitter more important than it actually is, and unwise and/or threatening posts by warring politicians on the platform is (sadly) nothing new and a global trend at that Abcmaxx (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Peruvian general election[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 June 6 Template:Cob

Comment While TeleSur appears as a source in this nom, it is not present in the article. Kingsif (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Fixed with source I've been using to update the article's results. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until results are written into the article, otherwise the rest of the article looks solid. --Jayron 32 15:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support after results announced per nomination Abcmaxx (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a completely pointless nomination. All that matters is the prose, and we can't know if the prose will be sufficient until after the election results are in. Even if the rest of the article is perfect, I'm not going to support posting something if the most important part of it isn't (and can't) be written yet. Why not just nominate the French Open before we know who's playing in the finals? Why don't we nominate old people for RD before they're dead? -- Kicking222 (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure someone has a ITN nomination for 'Death of Queen Elizabeth II' prepared and saved somewhere on their computer. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 05:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "Post the day before it happens so I get credit for it" nominations rub me the wrong way. While we're waiting, does anyone want to form consensus for Olympics to go in ongoing in two months? I say support. /s AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, the editor in question is also an article contributor, so they can get an article contributor credit anyway. But nominating a day or so before the election results is announced is way too premature. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is there that the motivation here is merely to get credit? 331dot (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None whatsoever; that was a total bad faith assumption.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the results~~, and support per WP:ITN/R~~. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U "Support per ITNR" is unnecessary, as the whole point of ITNR nominations is that support on the merits is not required; this discussion is to discuss article quality and a blurb(as well as timing). 331dot (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Ah, my bad, I didn't notice that the nomination was already made according as a recurring item. Thank you for letting me know, I'm striking that part at least for the sake of simplicity. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until actual results are confirmed. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait For official results to be confirmed.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The result is almost beyond doubt, in favor of Castillo, but of course we need to wait for the official source and for the prose update to the article. Davey2116 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE Looking at the Results from the official election website, 100% of the vote is in with Castillo in the lead meaning he has won the election. The Wall Street Journal also said that Castillo has all but won the election --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article remains unaffected by this new information, which would preclude it being posted on the main page unless and until that is rectified. --Jayron 32 14:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been called as the election hasn't been officially validated, and there could be a recount, etc. Uses x (leave me a message) 17:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Pakistan train crash[edit]

Template:ITN candidate Support because it's important enough and the article is of sufficient quality. Jim Michael (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose The article needs a lot of work, it's a stub and has been tagged with link rot. Once the article is up in good shape, then I'd support.Support Article's linkrot issue has been fixed and it is being expanded. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – in principle, pending expansion of article. Widely covered and prominently featured on RS sites, most of which say at least 40 killed. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Sca and as death toll is in double digits. Depressed Desi (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good article and meets the criteria for nomination. Pyramids09 (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 6[edit]

(Posted) RD: Addo Bonetti[edit]

Support sourcing is sufficient. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John M. Patterson[edit]

Template:Strikethrough as the sourcing isn't there yet, but it's clearly being worked on and I'd expect it to be ready soon. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, I see I had missed sourcing the "failed elections" section. It's sourced now. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support article quality is sufficient. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Earliest-serving and oldest living former U.S. governor. Also, deaths of segregationists are always fun. Davey2116 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Canada truck attack[edit]

Oppose While a hate-related crime, it does not appear to be terrorism related nor premediated based on the given sources. Its a sad event, but not the type of crime we'd cover on ITN. --Masem (t) 20:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U But it was a premeditated act. The BBC headline is "Muslim family killed in 'premeditated' truck attack". According to police: "There is evidence that this was a planned, premeditated act". This is also now being covered widely internationally.VR _talk 21:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant in the sense, in comparison to most terrorist acts, that the man didn't plan this act out. The act was likely premediated as in "premediated murder" in the sense the suspect appears to very much dislike Muslims, saw the opportunity to run down the family , and did so on the spot. Yes, its being covered internationally because hate crimes in Canada are rare, but this is not like, say, 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa which was terrorism related. --Masem (t) 21:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same deal, the premeditation's in the type of planned target. In 2014, it was soldiers. Now, it's Muslims. MINIMUMDEATHCOUNT-wise, this is the significant one. In a political outrage sense, most Canadians expect that if terrorists kill anyone, it should be our soldiers, not every demographic of traditional nuclear family on our streets; Could be some big (federal and provincial) ramifications. At least this one has someone to slowly punish in public, like in 2017. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lone wolf attacks aren't ITN material as crimes happen every day. Terrorist attacks of this sort, just like the ones in the U.S., tend to get lots of clicks so they get a lot of articles written about them even though they aren't very significant. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disaster stub at this moment. I'm not convinced of notability either.130.233.213.61 (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- we wouldn't include an attack of this magnitude if it were in the US or the UK. I don't think there's any good argument that it should be included in ITN. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 05:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because it's nowhere near important enough. Killings in Africa, Asia & the US with death tolls that are multiple times this one occur frequently & the large majority aren't posted. A high proportion aren't even nominated. Jim Michael (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Prosecutors are considering terrorism charges"- this means it's a hate crime, but not necessarily a terrorist attack. So I agree with Template:U's reasoning for why it's not notable enough for ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mochtar Kusumaatmadja[edit]

~~Comment~~ One citation needed tag. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support As that's resolved, assuming good faith on the citations (they're mainly from books) it's fully cited and there's a good amount of information. Uses x (talk • contribs) 02:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re Done, thank you for notifying. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 02:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Richard Robinson[edit]

Support Looks good --Vacant0 (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: David Dushman[edit]

Support (t · c) buidhe 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 IIHF World Championship[edit]

The specific final article should be bold and right now its tables and no text. Step hen 23:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
question: does the article's usage of a template that is being considered for deletion have any effect on whether this article is eligible for posting? i understand that articles being considered for deletion are typically not posted, but am not sure if the same applies to articles using such templates. also, the template for discussion template appears to be breaking the formatting of two of the tables. dying (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't, since templates can just be replaced. It looks like it'll be kept anyway, so it's just a problem of it looking terrible because of the deletion notice. Uses x (talk • contribs) 02:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now because both 2021 IIHF World Championship#Final and 2021 IIHF World Championship Final lack updated prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose needs more prose about the matches themselves, as there is currently almost none. The bolded article needs some tenses updating in places. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready. Needs a referenced prose summary of the tournament and/or the final. Currently most of the text is about COVID restrictions and changes of venue, rather than what actually happened during the competition. Modest Genius ^talk 16:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: T. B. Joshua[edit]

Comment The lead section will have to get re-worked, other than that, the article looks alright since it's well-sourced. --Vacant0 (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support sourcing is sufficient. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is currently tagged with Template:Tl. Can this issue be addressed soon, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) British Academy TV awards[edit]

Support blurb If we post the Emmys, I don’t see a compelling reason to not post the British Academy Television Awards, particularly considering that we post the BAFTAs for film. Probably the second-most high profile English language television awards. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Article is in pretty good shape and per Wizardontheyear. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have we ever posted the British Academy Television Awards on ITN previously? Has there been any attempt to nominate for ITN/R? WaltCip-(talk) 00:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was an ITN/R discussion in August 2020. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb 1 Article appears stubby, merely because the 2,7kb of prose is above and below tables. Well written otherwise. The altblurbs are awkward (alt1) and UNDUE (alt2).130.233.213.61 (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collapse top

comment: apparently, both Template:Diff3 and Template:Diff3 to itn/r were performed by an editor now blocked for sockpuppetry. i was hoping to find the reasoning behind their additions in the relevant consensus-establishing discussions, but could not find one. (i could easily be looking in the wrong places, though.) however, i did find a discussion about a month prior to the additions where, in my opinion, no consensus had been established. also, there have been calls in recent years to remove the emmys from itn/r, at least once each in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. dying (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the place to discussion ITNR issues, nor to propose a new ITNR. Only key is that we have repeated published - when the articles is up to par - the Emmy winners, and thus reasonable to see if one of the other top TV shows currently not an ITNR can be nominated per ITNC . --Masem (t) 00:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - apologies, i had not meant to propose an inclusion or exclusion to itn/r here, but merely wished to explain why i had felt that the current arguments for notability of this year's bafta tv awards seem lacking. i had wanted to understand why the emmys were considered notable enough for inclusion in itn/r, hoping that it would allow me to understand if this year's bafta tv awards were notable enough to post on itn, but i could not find a consensus establishing the former. to be clear, i had been interpreting each !vote here as for posting on itn, not for inclusion on itn/r. if you still feel that the comment is inappropriate, i can strike the comment if you prefer. dying (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
question: regardless of whether the emmys should be included in itn/r, why are this year's british academy television awards notable enough to be posted to itn? genuine question, as i am unfamiliar with television awards in general. i couldn't find the viewership numbers for this year's bafta tv awards, but according to deadline, it appears that only about two million people watched this year's bafta film awards live.Template:Nowrap considering that reuters reported that decreased viewership has been "a trend among live awards shows during the coronavirus pandemic", i would assume that interest in this year's bafta tv awards are similarly dismal.Template:Nowrap in addition, the telegraphTemplate:'s review of this year's show does not seem favourable. the only current arguments for notability i see above appear to hinge on the emmys being notable enough for itn/r, which itself seems questionable. dying (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Popularity is not a factor for INTC, nor is reception of the awards ceremony. The question to ask is if in the world of television media, if the BAFTA TV awards represent a sufficiently high level of award to be included as ITNC. --Masem (t) 00:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - And to add to this, each ITNC is standalone, so the assertion that Template:Tq is completely wrong. The Emmys being in ITN/R could be (and has been) just one of several arguments for adding BATAs to ITN/R, but this is something that posting at ITN/C doesn't hinge on in the slightest. Judge this nom on its own merits, not on whether one newspaper was impressed with the production or if you think the Emmys should be ITN/R or not. Kingsif (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - popularity and reception of the awards ceremony are currently all the information i have that could be relevant, which is why i was hoping that someone else could explain how this year's bafta tv awards were notable. also, i'm not sure if qualifying the notability question by adding "in the world of television media" is appropriate, since similar qualifications can be applied for other nominations. ("in the world of eve online, does the battle of b-r5rb represent a sufficiently notable battle to be posted on itn?")Template:Pbto make it clear, i do not believe that the bafta tv awards are not notable. i simply don't know if they are, and none of the arguments i have seen above so far have convinced me, someone who knows admittedly virtually nothing about television awards, that the bafta tv awards this year are notable enough to be posted to itn. also, regardless of whether the bafta tv awards belong in itn/r, i am evaluating this itn/c nomination on its own merits, which is why my question included the phrase "this year's". (currently, i have no concerns over the article's quality.) my shoddy research had found mention of celebrities appearing in holograph form, which might be notable, but it seemed like they only showed up on the red carpet, so i was unsure of its relevance.Template:Pbi agree that determining this nomination's merits on itn/c should not be based on whether the emmys are in itn/r, which is why i prefaced my question with "regardless of whether the emmys should be included in itn/r", and why i am unconvinced by the other arguments that appear based on the emmy's inclusion in itn/r. for example, the statement "If we post the Emmys, I don't see a compelling reason to not post the British Academy Television Awards" appears to base the notability of the subject of this nomination on the recurring posting of the emmys, and not, for example, one instance of its posting, in which case the opinion may have been better conveyed by stating "If we posted the Emmys" instead.Template:Pbi linked the review not because the reviewer was unimpressed by the production, but because the first purpose of itn is "[t]o help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news", and considering that the reviewer stated that the ceremony "veered from cheerless to underwhelming and then circled all the way around", i gathered that not many readers would be interested in quickly accessing this content. the review also notes that "there were a few mild surprises but no bombshells" regarding the winners, which meant to me that readers generally interested in the list of winners and not the ceremony itself may also not be as interested in this year's article. other reviews were available, but this one was from a solidly reliable source, and also seemed to be the most favourable amongst the ones i had found. dying (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not how awards like this work. Rarely, the significance of the award is discussed in depth with the current year's ceremony, but instead that is instead established over many years from multiple other sources. We judge inclusion of such awards or sports events at ITNC (if there's no ITNR) based on evaluating how important that is in that field, which may requiring going beyond the specific year, as well as making sure the specific year's ceremony is in the news and the specific year ceremony is up to date. Eg: we don't include stuff like the Nickelodeon Kids Choice awards because while they may have coverage, we know from their history they are not considered top tier awards in the industry. But BAFTAs, in general, are on par with the big US academies in its history. --Masem (t) 05:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - What Masem said: 1. how popular something is, doesn't really matter. 2. the above support that said there is no good reason not to post because the Emmys are ITN/R is not, as you interpreted, saying that the Emmys being ITN/R is a reason to post - it is suggesting that the ITN/R of an equivalent award means that any personal prejudice against posting TV award ceremonies is not a compelling oppose (and that user saw no other reasons, so supported). As an additional note, I also find it bizarre that you think a negative review means that people won't be interested in accessing information about an event, especially awards: they most likely want to see the results and don't care about the production value. Since this is wildly off-topic but I'm sure nobody cares to start explaining to you further at the talkpage, I've collapsed it. Kingsif (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collapse bottom

Support It's a notable ceremony and the article looks good. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) The Birth of Lilibet Mountbatten Windsor[edit]

Oppose Essentially just celebrity news. Uses x (talk • contribs) 20:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The child is unlikely to take the throne and Harry/Megan have withdrawn from royal duties. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we're not a gossip chat for (former) royals. Questionable if a baby more today should even have an article, as WP:NOTINHERITED applies. But definitely not ITN worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. her brother was also not posted. dying (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose its newsworthiness is questioned even in Britain by media critics; never mind as a global event. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good to know, but not big news. Kingsif (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not realistically in line for the throne. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose great to hear but definitely not blurb worthy --Vacant0 (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not worthy of ITN. I suggest a WP:SNOW close.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2021 Sri Lanka floods[edit]

Comment Perhaps better for ongoing, per nom comment? Kingsif (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For ongoing we need to be confident that it'll continue to be updated, but right now it's not even long enough for a blurb. One thing at a time. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing would benefit from a bit of expansion, but it's clearly an ongoing issue. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I do not believe that the two flood events highlighted in the article is significant enough to go up on WP:ITN or Ongoing especially with only 14 deaths. I also firmly believe that we as a community need to look carefully at how we present flood articles and other such weather articles. For example: are these two flood events really notable enough to be split of from a general Floods in Sri Lanka article especially since one is associated with the monsoonal rains.Jason Rees (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The weather project editors seem to feel differently, just look at how many routine storms get nominated. Kingsif (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Major hurricanes and typhoons that make landfall are often key events even if they are usual seasonal occurrences. But so are floods and things like tornado cells that are associated with northern hemispehere spring-summer conditions. It is not that we won't post floods or tornadoes but they should have a much more significant impact that the usual occurences. --Masem (t) 13:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Firstly speaking as a member of the Weather Project, I can tell you that editors within the project, don't tend to feel differently and only tend to nominate something unless they know it's going to have a or has had a significant impact on an area and by significant we generally mean we expect to see the retirement of the weather systems name where applicable. However, we have to remember that editors who do not contribute to the weather project can and do nominate events for ITN even when they are generally routine and is why we wanted to get some criteria set up. However, it isn't easy and we have to go on a case by case basis. Also it is worth noting that the weather project has only just really been set up and is hoping to improve coverage of weather events across the board including flooding, so that we can get a better idea of what's notable and what isn't. However, to do so we need editors like yourself to contribute with your local knowledge on what happens in your country.Jason Rees (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Routine, as flash floods occur in Sri Lanka (with usually a higher number of deaths) at around this time every year. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sad, but normal... Noah^Talk 22:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Somaliland parliamentary election[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 June 5 Template:Cob

Oppose Unlike Kosovo, which is partially recognised, Somaliland is internationally considered to be part of Somalia. Because of that, we don't post elections in any other self-proclaimed separatist entity, such as the Republic of Artsakh. Brandmeister^talk 11:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a hard-and-fast rule. The rule is that states listed on List of sovereign states get ITN/R, states listed on List of states with limited recognition (i.e. Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland) get ITN/C. Elections in the Republic of Artsakh could very well be posted under these rules. If you individually don't think this election is important enough to pass through ITN/C that's one thing, but it is an eligible submission per policy, not inherently restricted from posting as you imply. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has a historical precedent, Artsakh elections were rejected at least once due to unrecognized status. Brandmeister^talk 13:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – ""Somaliland's self-proclaimed independence has not been officially recognised by any country or international organisation." Thus, voting results there don't qualify for ITN. – Sca (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca It doesn't qualify for ITN/R, but that's not what the nomination is for. The nominator comment says everything. Uses x (talk • contribs) 16:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, Somaliland is a self-proclaimed political entity that's not recognised by other countries but this election was observed by representatives of UN member states, which gives it international legitimacy and it may lead to wider recognition according to political experts. Additionally, this is the first parliamentary election in sixteen years in a political entity whose independence has been matter of a thirty-year long and still ongoing civil war. As compared to Kosovo as a recent precedent, it has double of its population and 16 times greater territory. Marrying up all these things, this is a significant election that merits inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because Somaliland isn't a country. Jim Michael (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kiril Simeonovski. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article is fine, and even though it's not ITN/R 3.5 million live in Somaliland (The Republic of Artsakh, which Brandmeister used as an example, has 120,000), as well as it being the first election in 16 years, so it's a significant election. The fact that the European Union, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom helped fund the election, as well as ambassadors supporting the election, shows the election can't just be dismissed. Uses x (talk • contribs) 16:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kiril Simeonovski. Somaliland is the textbook case of a de facto rather than de jure state. I understand its not ITNR for this reason but that's also not automatic grounds for dismissal. The article is adequate and well-describes an election that determines the effectively sovereign government of a large jurisdiction. --LukeSurl^t c 16:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support They are a de facto independent state and have been for a long time. The Somali government does not have any de facto jurisdiction over Somaliland therefore who wins this election governs the land in its entirety. The main difference is that unlike some other unrecognised states it is not a puppet government installed by a foreign power either. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kiril Simeonovski and others who supported before me. IMO, they have summarised strong arguments in favour of posting. 45.251.33.143 (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Armenia is a partially-recognised state and was posted before. Honestly don't see why this shouldn't be posted. 71.190.46.168 (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technically only Pakistan doesn’t recognise Armenia, so Armenia is recognised by almost every country. But I agree that this should be posted. 45.251.33.143 (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Somaliland is de facto a state, I agree with Kiril's statement above. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Most of the opposition seems to be related to the fact that Somaliland is not recognized as an independent nation, but this is not an ITNR nomination where that would be relevant, and the article seems in good shape. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Template:Ping, The article says that Waddani wins 31 seats, not majority seats. However they announced coalition with UCID. Maybe we should revize the blurb.Joseph (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended it to "the most seats". 331dot (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Somaliland is not a country goes to the significance of the event, which is one of the three mandatory criteria that an article must meet to get a blurb. I'm not saying that the blurb should be pulled at this point, nor am I saying that there wasn't consensus to post. But those opposes were in fact relevant, and you shouldn't have dismissed them outright. Mlb96 (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the record, we did not post the results of the Northern Cyprus election because of a lack of consensus to post, and most people who opposed did so on the grounds of "not a country, not significant" (including myself). Mlb96 (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that item wasn't posted because it became stale – nothing to do with consensus. The 2015 Northern Cypriot presidential election and the 2018 Northern Cypriot parliamentary election were posted, however. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So it was. However, my point still stands and it is a perfectly valid reason to oppose. Mlb96 (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says internationally recognized states are ITN/R, and states with limited recognition should be judged on their merits through ITN/C. You say not being internationally recognized should have bearing on significance as assessed by ITN/C. But if a nation were internationally recognized, it would be ITN/R and we wouldn't have to assess significance at all. What you're saying is a Catch-22. The policy as written clearly indicates that some elections from states with limited recognition are blurb eligible. So how do votes simply expressed along the lines of "nope, not a country" hold water? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems irrelevant, given that the vast majority of comments are in support. Debating this point of contention further would be an entirely academic matter. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such an election could be significant, if, for example, a leader who supported reintegration into the original country or a leader who supported an all-out war of independence were elected. Contrast this with an internationally recognized country, in which the elections are inherently significant no matter what, and we reflect this by making them ITN/R. You are essentially treating these elections as also being inherently significant, which is directly adverse to the "not ITN/R, judge on their own merits" policy. Mlb96 (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 5[edit]

(Posted) Solhan and Tadaryat massacres[edit]

Support - a notable event, unusual both for the country and for the horrific scale. The article is in ok shape and I have confidence it will continue to improve. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Significant enough, but the article needs to be longer. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Notable due to the huge death toll but article needs expansion. --ϗ (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly notable on significance, everything is cited. Certainly would be nicer if it was longer, but it's acceptable as is. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good --Vacant0 (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it's easily important enough & the article is sufficient. Jim Michael (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very much notable. The article could use some work, but given how cloak and dagger the perpetrators are, maybe that's not so surprising. Melmann 10:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – in principle. – BBC puts toll in Solhan at 132. However, more sources needed. – Sca (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality Could use some background e.g. Terrorism in Burkina Faso [19].—Bagumba (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable and article's good enough (although could be better). Brycehughes (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per notability. Article is not as bad. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) G7 agreement on global corporate tax rate[edit]

Oppose as it's premature. Right now it's only a statement of intent and isn't binding in any way. Next, the larger group of G20 members will be presented with the idea, and if they give the okay there will be a lot of discussion on the small details. Then, 130 countries need to give the okay. (Irish Examiner) It's certainly in the news, but I think the story lacks significance because right now it doesn't mean anything, and the details haven't been added to the article. It's blurb-worthy if/when it becomes binding. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I was trying to figure out the "next steps" to understand how binding this G7 was, and would generally agree we need a more likely firm point that this will happen. But we also generally post when the news seems to recognize a major step, which is what this is being called. But we absolutely need a proper target for this and that I don't know. --Masem (t) 17:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The G7 summit article has not been updated. Corporate tax could be a target, but it has orange tags. Joofjoof (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on significance All G7 Summits are ITN/R, and therefore pass ITN on significance. There's a couple of uncited paragraphs, so it's not ready yet, but it shouldn't be difficult to change that. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this year's summit is June 11-13. From WP:ITN/R#Economic and political summits: "Summits are posted upon conclusion". Joofjoof (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as ITN/C. As Joofjoof said only the conclusion of a G7 summit is ITN/R. That isn't to say that this nomination shouldn't be judged on its merits; a singular newsworthy event could take place within a summit, but the community consensus beforehand was only regarding the summit itself. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even the deal to back a proposal hasn't been finalized, and the seemingly associated summit hasn't started. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now I am broadly supportive of this, but it is too early. If some kind of actual agreement is reached that is transposed into international law then ITN should mention it for sure. Melmann 10:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Not happening yet. – Sca (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for 13th - as commented above ITN/R, but the summit hasn't even begun yet. Worth hanging onto until it closes in a week. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the summit starts and we'll reassess what is significant at that time.—Bagumba (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and close. Agreements at summits are borderline CRYSTAL, commonly requiring domestic approval from differently-minded constituents. Leaks of talking points that might be agreed at a summit are several miles into CRYSTAL.130.233.213.61 (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 June 4 Template:Cob

June 4[edit]

(Posted) RD: Karla Burns[edit]

RD only This doesn't even come close to the significance level required for a blurb. 1779Days (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RD only Not that significant for blurb level. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as RD --PFHLai (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb It's possible Laurence Olivier himself would not have received a blurb. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb She's nowhere near transformative in her field, and the death itself isn't really generating noteworthy reaction. rawmustard (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Is a blurb really even "being discussed" here? There is obviously no chance of it. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Clarence Williams III[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 June 3 Template:Cob

Oppose Career and personal life sections need sourcing work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose still in need of many sources. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 3[edit]

(Posted) RD: Friederike Mayröcker[edit]

Support article meets quality requirements. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Works section has no footnotes. Do we require footnotes in the lists down there, too? The referencing in the prose of this wikiarticle seems fine. --PFHLai (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PFHLai, it has now a ref for the audio plays and the libretto. The book are identified by ISBN numbers, I believe that suffices. If not we can cite the DNB (in authority control). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've found this source: http://www.literaturhaus.at/index.php?id=8245 with complete works. Grimes2 (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Thanks for adding the footnotes so quickly. --PFHLai (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD/Blurb: Anerood Jugnauth[edit]

Adding a blurb to the nomination so we have something to vote on. Oppose on quality: sections "2012–2014" and "Family life" are entirely unsourced, unsourced paragraphs in much of the rest of the article. Support blurb when improved. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article needs a lot of referencing work as there are unsourced paragraphs and sections. If article is improved, then I would support a blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty much is unsourced. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 06:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Template:U, i believe it depends on the notability of the leader and the quality of the article. former president of india abdul kalam received a blurb in 2015, but former president of india pranab mukherjee did not last year. more recently, in march, former president of madagascar didier ratsiraka received a blurb, while former prime minister of bangladesh moudud ahmed was skipped altogether. also, notability does not appear to excuse article quality, as former president of france jacques chirac was also completely skipped. dying (talk) 07:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, after reading your linked nominations I thought this had to do with their influence. Abdul Kalam played a pivotal role in developing India's nuclear weapon and continued to do so after his ascension to presidency. Ratsiraka served as president for nearly two decades and transformed Madagascar into a socialist state before returning it to its original state. On the other hand, there is hardly anything outstanding from Moudud Ahmed and Pranab Mukherjee's tenure as the leader of their respective country. Jacques Chirac is an outlier, I guess. ϗ (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Most of the article seems to be unsourced --Vacant0 (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality because the article is lacking a significant number of citations. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb in principle but oppose on quality for now. If he were just a president or PM, then he'd probably be not very significant but considering he was both president and PM, he should be blurbed. 71.190.46.168 (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also his son is the current PM, which increases his visibility and importance IMO. 71.190.46.168 (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: F. Lee Bailey[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 June 2 Template:Cob

Support An interesting character. I'm assuming good faith on the book citations, but if that text is anything like the rest (with a spot check of each section) then all the information appears to be correct. The article is also comprehensive and well researched. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Uses X; comprehensive, well researched, and very notable. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 03:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2[edit]

(Posted) RD: Raymond J. Donovan[edit]

Support article meets quality requirements. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) International Booker Prize[edit]

I've managed to expand the article a bit, will see if I can add more later - Dumelow (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The International Booker is jointly awarded to author and translator. Step hen 23:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added an altblurb. P-K3 (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a note at ITNR that author and translator should be included in blurb. --Masem (t) 05:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ready The article is fine and well-referenced given the available sources of information. There's really no need to wait any more.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posting, looks fine and it is ITNR. --Tone 13:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:David Diop (2018).png is available from WCommons. Are you folks at ITN interested? --PFHLai (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've posted this pic on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) X-Press Pearl[edit]

Comment I know that this was nominated six days ago, but I am boldly re-nominating it for today given that the ship sank today. Please correct me if I am mistaken. NorthernFalcon (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this has a significant impact in global news since this container ship has sunk into the Indian Ocean. 112.134.213.204 (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This looks ready now, willing to post when I see some more support. --Tone 09:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the last nomination my problem was that the environmental impact wasn't clear, but now much more information is out and it has been put into the article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 10:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. Now we have a ship-bias on ITN, that's rare. --Tone 10:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we post the Nigerian boat accident too? That one had 60+ fatalities, but the article needs a lot of expansion. Jehochman ^Talk 14:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it met the conditions of an ITN-worthy article, then we could. But the article is a short stub that nobody seems willing to expand. Lots of people are coming here to complain that it's not posted, yet nobody wants to invest any time getting it to at least a start class article. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the Niger boat accident, looking at the sources given and what I can even see, I don't even know if we can get it past a stub. It happened, it was reported, but -- there's a rather amazing lack of detail in English-language sources -no followup from major sources after the event to confirm the death toll, etc. This is a problem of external systematic bias, not within WP, when we can't really do much with what little the sources give us to start with. Yes, some expansion is possible from what's there but may be two or three sentences at best. --Masem (t) 14:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I found too. It's unfortunate and disappointing. I don't know how to fix it. Jehochman ^Talk 16:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has just been expanded; worth taking another look.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping please see Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Nigeria boat accident, ongoing new discussion moved to May 27 Abcmaxx (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) IRIS Kharg[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2021 June 1 Template:Cob

Comment At least according to the Reuters, with no loss of life, but I think the quality of the article precludes a quick snow close on this facet. --Masem (t) 13:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Largest ship in the Iranian navy sinks. That seems newsworthy. However, the article only has one sentence describing the sinking. I recommend waiting to see whether this was an accident, sabotage, or combat loss. Jehochman ^Talk 13:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The answers to those questions may take a long time to surface, or maybe never will. – Sca (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- They're saying it was a fire in one of the ship's systems (well outside of combat). Now sure, it could be something like sabotage, but I don't think we need to wait to post for the explicit explanation beyond that. The update (like the safety of the crew, etc.) should be included though. --Masem (t) 13:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added that the crew were rescued. Mjroots (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – in principle, pending expansion of article – due to the possible political ramifications of the destruction of the Iranian Navy's largest vessel (by whom?). – Sca (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sinking of the largest ship in a large navy is notable regardless of whether there are casualties or not (at the very least, we don't have a rule written in stone that death toll is the only criterion for notability). The article is in good shape and could be posted once the update on the incident is expanded with a few more sentences.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The Kharg was not a "tanker" in the usual maritime sense of the word (a commercial vessel used to transport petroleum), but as our article says "a replenishment oiler (naval term) or replenishment tanker" used to supply fuel oil to other vessels at sea. Possible change to plain English: "a naval fuel-supply ship." – Sca (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A tanker is a vessel designed to transport any liquid, be it water, petroleum, milk, beer or whatever. The ship class is correct, per the article on the class. Mjroots (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Today's modest proposal is that we speak to our audience in plain English. Just a suggestion in the interest of readability & comprehension. – Sca (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article itself looks good and I'd consider this notable enough for a blurb. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - image added to CMP and is protected. Mjroots (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the article has two lines of text on the sinking. Wait until there's at least a decent amount of content about the event in the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm seeing four lines. What it does have, which applies to all browsers and screen settings, is five sentences and four references relating to the loss. Mjroots (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I see five short sentences that constitute a short paragraph. That is insufficient for ITN in my opinion- if we're going to be directing users to an article about an events, there should actually be a decent amount of information about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - A system failed, the ship caught fire, the crew was evacuated, the ship sunk. It's going to take time to determine the exact cause but the rest of the article is in good shape, and that's a sufficient update. It is not like the crash of a commercial airliner where there would be tons of details of the cause and effect immediately; this is a military vessel and by that nature, its not going to be immediately scrutinized to the same degree. --Masem (t) 15:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We need a better article. Pyramids09 (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is good, and it's notable as its the biggest ship in the Iranian Navy. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article looks good, and it is a very notable ship in the Iranian Navy. SVcode(Talk) 16:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posting, I'll modify the location a bit, it was in the Gulf of Oman, near Jask. --Tone 16:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed the image, now, who's going to do the paperwork? Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you was a job doing well... Mjroots (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "The largest ship in the Iranian Navy" == trivia. "IRIS Kharg (pictured), a modified Ol-class tanker, catches fire and sinks in the Gulf of Oman near Jask, Iran." is fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ERRORS, where the change was made. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Interesting that a drive-by at WP:ERRORS for something which is not an error could clobber the consensus blurb from WP:ITNC. "The ship wasn't on fire" would be an error, this was WP:IDONTLIKEIT --LaserLegs (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that word "consensus" means what you think it means. Jehochman ^Talk 20:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does it mean someone shows up at WP:ERRORS asking for a change and Jehochman unilaterally makes the change? I was looking at WP:CON but I didn't find that part, if you can point it out though it'd clear this whole thing up for me and I'll move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Largest ship" isn't trivia any more than the fact it sank is trivia. It's the main reason this is a story at all. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Per my statement in the talk page RFC (related to elections but applies here), "the biggest ship in Iran's navy" is a non-controversial fact, and nearly every RS reporting on the sink repeat this. While its an observation/commentary on the news fact, its definitely far too closely tied with what's being reported so it is definitely appropriate to include in this case. --Masem (t) 22:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't put that phrase in the proposed blurb as I thought it could be seen as glorifying in the loss to the Iranian Navy, rather that stating the simple fact thay they had lost a ship. It was mentioned in the nomination notes here to give editors here an idea of the significance of the loss. Mjroots (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great article, in the news, well-sourced. Jusdafax (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the kind of news item we want to highlight. Good work to those who updated the article. Jehochman ^Talk 04:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 1[edit]

(Posted) RD: Robert Rutman[edit]

Support The works that are missing citations can just be commented out since they seem to be very obscure. I'll leave it uncommented in case any more can be found. I found a few more citations on top of yours, so there are plenty of cited works there anyway. The rest of the article is excellent and well referenced, so it's not a problem considering its size. Uses x (talk • contribs) 20:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks alright now --Vacant0 (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 03:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mike Marshall (pitcher)[edit]

Support – well-sourced; looks like it meets the minimum requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good --Vacant0 (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good length and everything checks out. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is well-cited. rawmustard (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Criminalization of sexual abuse in Catholic Church[edit]

Comment More than that: "insisting that bishops take action against clerics who abuse minors and vulnerable adults, commit fraud or attempt to ordain women". It won't take effect until 8 December (so it could possibly be left until then), and it completely replaces the 1983 Code of Canon Law (a very comprehensive article). The target page should therefore be 2021 Code of Canon Law, which doesn't currently exist. (The Irish Times) Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that's likely the proper article for this (more than just a small update to any of the other articles that cover the Canon Law), and that really should be created first before we can post (this is not an area I'm not an expert that I could contribute meanfully here). In terms of timing, as we've usually done in the past, given that there's nothing that will stop these from going into force, we usually post on the announcement when there's recognition by reliable sources, barring any other points. --Masem (t) 18:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of both sources above is that it's rather a revision, not a brand new canon, I've added altblurb. Specifically, AP says "The revision, which has been in the works since 2009, involves all of section six of the Church's Code of Canon Law", i.e. only one section of the Code is revamped. Brandmeister^talk 19:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Irish Times says "It replaced the code approved by Pope John Paul II in 1983 and will take effect on December 8th". I don't think this is going to get posted, but I think the nonexistant article I posted above is the right one because of that. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this was a sovereign country, would we post this as a blurb? NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. The very idea of a state keeping sexual assault legal for this long would be amazing in itself. Things being as they are with this particular Catholic Church, though, it's not so cut and dry. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Oppose – It's been widely covered, so some people think it's significant, but to a non-Catholic it seems a church matter beyond the usual scope of ITN. Not quite sure what "criminalizes" means in this context. – Sca (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Catholic, but I would assume that it means that you could be excommunicated for that. I agree that it is vague and probably not in the scope of ITN to announce changes in religious doctrine. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what "criminalizes" means in this instance, then it's an internal church or doctrinal issue and not within the purview of ITN – (IMO). Changed to oppose. — Sca (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of cases in regular news that have also bubbled into ITN news related to abuses of the Church to minors and others over the last several years, this change is significant across the board. But I fully agree that having an article or a necessarily significant section to expand exactly what this means, etc. is necessary as otherwise, it could appear simply as hand-waving the problem away too (I don't read it like that but it could be). --Masem (t) 20:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Internal Catholic matter/doctrine change which, given the Catholic proclivity to protect sexual abusers, is unlikely to have any meaningful impact (sexual abuse is already against 10 Commandments, and Catholics purport to follow those). If/when any prominent individual actually gets punished under these provisions, that may constitute an ITN item. Melmann 22:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Presumably this is a symbolic gesture to show that the church is finally taking the issue seriously. Which is a good thing, but I doubt it will have much practical impact. It's not like they've officially condoned or allowed sexual abuse up until now, it just wasn't written down as such. And writing it down may or may not make a difference in terms of how much it's covered up going forward, that remains to be seen. — Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we wouldn't report on minor statutory changes at national or supranational levels so we should not do so for canon law either. This seems more like a tightening/clean up of the existing provisions, not unlike amendments to acts of parliament for example.Abcmaxx (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd be open to a blurb, but I'm not seeing an obvious article this would apply. We have Catholic Church sexual abuse cases, which is more about specific cases than the general topic of Catholic Church sexual abuse.—Bagumba (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose something that is illegal is now recognised as illegal- seems rather like just a symbolic gesture. Not ITN worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It is a major update on canon law to deal with the sexual abusers. This issue concerns our society as a whole. STSC (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Prince Amedeo, Duke of Aosta (born 1943)[edit]

Comment I moved this nomination to correct date (1 June). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It needs more citations, and there may be BLP issues with the full names and dates of birth of minors given in the article. P-K3 (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ujwal Thapa[edit]

Oppose unless expanded, it's currently rated as stub class JW 1961^Talk 12:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Support as expanded beyond stub class and sufficiently referenced now JW 1961^Talk 08:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per JW 1961. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 03:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support just about enough for RD, what is there is well referenced. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mufti Faizul Waheed[edit]