This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
This page contains a section for each day and a sub-section for each nomination. To see the size and title of each section, please expand the following section size summary.
Kosmos 482, a failed Venus probe launched by the Soviet Union in 1972, is expected to re-enter Earth's atmosphere some time between 9 and 10 May. Experts are unsure of where it will crash land. (The Guardian)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Holocaust survivor who was active as a public speaker in not forgetting, died at age 103. The article looks good and I am surprised that nobody brought it here yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Jack Brearley and Brodie Lee Palmer are found guilty of the murder of Aboriginal Australian schoolboy Cassius Turvey in Middle Swan, Western Australia, in 2022, while Mitchell Forth is convicted of manslaughter. (BBC)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Pope has been elected! Will probably be announced soon today, so nominating now. EF516:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a clear winner, though. That's my point. Unless the blurb is "Cardinals conclude the papal conclave" or some variant an election with obvious unknown results shouldn't be nominated. Departure– (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which is within the next hour. I'm invoking WP:IAR by nominating this now, as there is a 100% chance it'll be posted. — EF516:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support once we know who was elected and the name taken. I would have the blurb mention both the papal name and the personal name of the one elected. Gust Justice (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Simply saying they have elected a pope isn't a worthy article to post, wait until they announce who the new pope is Egg470 (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and post when announced. This is ITNR (change in most relevant head of state/government) and the quality is fine. With white smoke up we should know shortly and we can add the details. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions16:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support within an hour, the new pope will be announced. So, please keep the blurb nomination open in order to update the blurb once the name is announced. I also agree that this is ITNR so we should update the blurb according to how ITNR guideline does. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Everyone is really gunning to get this on the front page. The pope hasn't been announced, but he will be within the hour. No reason to rush things, obviously whether to post it won't be controversial.Support alt 3 There we go. Estreyeria (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why the rush to nominate? I think everyone recognizes that we aren't going to post this until we have the actual name of the new pope. Mlb96 (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's going to be announced in the next hour, no? Per above, I invoked WP:IAR given this will 100% be posted regardless today. — EF516:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, like seriously. The entirety of ITN really wants to get this on the front page lmao, but please wait atleast until we have an official name. TwistedAxe[contact]17:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and close this pointlessly premature nomination. We are an encyclopaedia, not a breaking news service. Even once the winner has been announced, their biographical article needs to be updated and brought up to a good enough standard to be bold-linked from the main page. That work hasn't even begun yet. Nominations should not be made until after the event has happened and the article has been updated. Modest Geniustalk17:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
usually with an election the article on the election is the bold-linked one, which in this case would be the article on the conclave. ✨ 4 🧚♂amKING17:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: Hold your horses. We don't even have a name to report on. When his identity is known, let's totally put it up. BOTTO (T•C)17:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Make that more than a tiny bit. Friends, the purpose of ITN is to showcase quality articles, not get things out fast, and there's very little analysis and context for this result right now. In fact, when I made the above comment, there was a glaring typo in the conclave article and the new pope's article was not updated at all. Please check the quality of the articles. And until this edit is published, the best blurbs weren't even bolded. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Currently, the new pope's article is in no state of posting. There's formatting issues, duplicating sections, and accidental mass reversions from edit conflicts, and I've edit conflicted four times in a row now trying to fix that and failing to. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maintaining my oppose for now - I still don't think the article on Leo XIV is up to quality or otherwise properly updated. Departure– (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is ITNR. The only thing that matters is the quality of the articles. It's been predetermined this us important. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the article looks decent enough now. The blurb should mention Peru where he was active for long periods, instead of a narrow North American image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per discussion as WP:ERRORS, I switched this to "United States-born" per the overwhelming coverage in the news focusing on his birth country and not his birth continent. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 19:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"United States-born" is so awkward. Why not just "American-born"? We are an English encyclopedia after all. Or if we're going to be real sticklers about it (despite the fact that in English, "American" means "From the US"), then "US-born" works too. There's really little doubt anyone reading the front page is not going to know what the US is. -- RockstoneSend me a message!20:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Support Massive international news, however are we going to consider his ties to Peru in the blurb? He was Archbishop in Peru afterall. Normalman101 (talk) (late signature)
Comment. Why "United States-born"? Since it's bigger, the focus should be on North America. I think "overwhelming coverage in the news focusing on his birth country" is unconvincing - most of the "overwhelming coverage" in question is American. We are an encyclopedia, not an echo of editorials. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BBC, Al Jazeera, dawn.com (hard to see but its there!) all have on their front page that Leo is the first US pope. I wouldn't be opposed to also adding Bishop of Chiclayo, Peru or somethign to that effect QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that 'North America' should be preferred in the blurb. If you take a deeper look at the sources, even though 'American' is mentioned in the titles, first pope born in/from 'North America' is in the text (e.g. [The Washington Post]). There are also reliable sources that use 'North American' (e.g. The Telepgraph). If we want to underline that he's the first in a geographical context, we should always refer to a wider geographical area, which in this case is North America. Another option is to simply remove that fact from the blurb as redundant. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> we should always refer to a wider geographical area
Firstly, I'm not sure he does release it, he says "that's with jdflynn", perhaps that's the true copyright holder of the work? Secondly, I think for the licence to be valid the copyright holder should release it somewhere formally with that licence (e.g. Commons or Flickr), or file a Commons:OTRS ticket to the effect that he's releasing it. I wouldn't put on the main page until that's done. — Amakuru (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also prefer the bold link to the person rather than the election process, parallel to Merz, - there are many more Catholics on earth than Germans ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like we did? Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina (pictured) is elected as Pope Francis, becoming the first Latin American pope of the Catholic ChurchNatg 19 (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A state of emergency is declared in Pakistan's Punjab province following the airstrikes, with all schools in the region being closed. Hospitals and emergency services are placed on high alert. (The Express Tribune)
According to Hamas officials, Israeli airstrikes kill at least 92 Palestinians, including women, children, and two journalists, and wound at least 86 others. (AP)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Unprecedented process so not the usual electoral nomination, top news worldwide will likely last a few days. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is like posting the US election on polling day and removing it the next. Could be over tomorrow for all we know. EF521:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a similar nomination was closed a few days ago. This is not an unprecedented process - there was a conclave 12 years ago when Francis became pope. Natg 19 (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the fact that it is happening in the extremely digitalised world of messengers, smartphones, so that it can be followed live, but I am also interested in the answer. BilboBeggins (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since the bulk takes place behind closed doors, the only reporting we can do is "nope, wasn't selected today". The selection will very likely be a good standalone itnc, but the process is not. Masem (t) 22:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Instead of nominating "Ongoing" event of Papal conclave, i will rather agree for nominate a blurb about the result of the conclave (which is similar to how ITNR does). The result of the conclave will be declared either on May 8 or 9, depending of white smoke from Vatican's chimney. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment I've tried to clean up the bibliography section with verifiable posts, and added a more extensive bibliography in the external links section. Yakikaki (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was recently discussed. I/P is posted now and ongoing in that context can be discussed when appropriate. Stephen02:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose at this time We clearly should post the recent strikes, and then if there's continued hostilities, then move to ongoing. We shouldn't bypass a blurb for this. Masem (t) 00:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if a full-scale war breaks out, we could consider posting it for ongoing, but right now it's 'only' missile strikes and plane shootdowns, besides which it's already covered by the ITN item just below. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wait on notability (likely will roll to support at some point). Strong oppose on quality. As you say, it's a developing story. Departure– (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per the sources, all flights at New Islamabad International Airport are suspended, the strikes resulted in one death and two injuries. Pakistan's air force is mobilized, and their defense minister claims an escalation of conflict is imminent. India claims strikes were targeted at some variant of terrorist sites in Jammu and Kashmir region. The limited scope should be specified in the blurb. Departure– (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major escalation between two nuclear powers but Oppose on quality as of now edit: it Appears to be in good quality now but some of it reads like a bit much like AI LLM Von bismarck (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable development between two nuclear-armed neighbors, article is now in sufficient quality to be posted on the Main Page (thank you to the editors who quickly did this!) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 21:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support This has become a major escalation, especially now that Pakistan vowed to retaliate. Article looks to be of fine quality now. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, article could do with more improvement though. Nowhere does the article say cities were targeted, maybe on multiple sites in Pakistan, claimed to be "terrorist infrastructure". The response can be added to the blurb when it happens, worth starting an ongoing nomination if this goes beyond the two exchanges. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability and note I would also recommend nominating this for ongoing if tensions are still high and further retaliatory attacks unfolding by the time blurb rolls off. Neutral on quality, agree with above that the article could be further improved but it has been rapidly expanded so far. FlipandFlopped㋡21:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose on quality of the second article - can we please nominate after the article is more than three sentences long? EF523:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but then why is it also nommed? If you nominate two articles, you have to keep both up to quality. The Kashmir article is also nommed, so in my view it should be up to par. EF523:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article is only about Pakistan shooting down three Indian aircraft. Not sure it is even necessary to have it as a separate article, and certainly not the main story for ITN. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as obvious. Dramatic escalation between two nuclear-armed states, and unlike Iran-Israel there’s the grim possibility of a direct land war as well. TheKip(contribs)23:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having two separate articles for what is clearly one connected event doesn't make any sense. These should be merged before we post. Masem (t) 00:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike the current blurb, which gives undue weight to the Pakistani retaliation without expanding on it at all via an article. Suggest moving it to the end (e.g. "..., leading to Pakistani retaliation), or linking the newly-created 2025 Pakistani strikes in Kashmir (which is of dubious quality and may be merged into the former article in the future). DatGuyTalkContribs02:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Alt1 also feels the worst to me to read, as if it's very obviously missing information, where Alt2, and the original do not (despite the lattler fully omitting Pakistan's respone) V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt2, the first blurb doesn't inlcude any details regarding Pakistans response, while Alt1 leaves out how Pakistan responded, and overall feels rough V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb modified ALT1 didn't feel quite right but it's obvious – Pakistan's retaliation should have been mentioned last. I've reworded it. Thanks for your feedback, and if there are further improvements, please debate them. Schwede6603:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support on notability but oppose having 2025 Pakistani strikes in Kashmir as the bold link. That's just two paragraphs, barely more than a stub, only discusses the Pakistani retaliation, and is currently nominated for both deletion and merging. 2025 India–Pakistan strikes is in much better shape and gives a more balanced coverage of the attacks by both sides. Modest Geniustalk09:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed the merge discussion with WP:SNOWing consensus to merge. @Fuzheado , @Schwede66 or another admin should consider unlinking the page. I believe the redirect is no longer appropriate to keep on the Main Page. Soni (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Bad writing" is a bit of a gratuitous insult... How would you phrase it differently then? I was aware of this issue, but the problem I had in phrasing it is that some of the cities are internationally-recognised Pakistani while others are only in the Pakistani-controlled areas, it's hard to phrase that neutrally without a bit of repetition. And the third mention is to clarify that Pakistan retaliated. This was labelled "a good rewrite" at WP:ERRORS too. — Amakuru (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, how about "India conducts missile strikes on several areas in Pakistan, prompting the country to retaliate with strikes of its own"? The "bad writing" was completely unnecessary, I agree, but I do understand the point Arion got across. — EF512:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saying escrita ruim (maybe because the adjective comes after the noun) doesn't sound as an insult in Portuguese, but I don't knew it is rude in English, sorry… ArionStar (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"India conducts missile strikes on several Pakistani and Pakistani-controlled cities, with the latter reciprocally retaliating." ArionStar (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not some variant of "India and Pakistan exchange missile strikes following the Pahalgam attack in Indian Kashmir"? The Pahalgam attack being the root cause of this, to me, seems like a major part of this. Departure– (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is the clearest blurb we have proposed. Pahalgam attack is clearly valuable context for this, and there's nearly no repetition here. I am also open to Enby's Alt4 below being modified Soni (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm surprised this is so for quick. We already posted the first attack by "Pakistan" into Kashmir, right? This is just routine tit-for-tat showmanship. Did we report on the Iranian missile attacks on Pakistan and the resulting Pakistan missile attacks on Iran last year? Nfitz (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is very contentious whether the terrorist group represents Pakistan, and this attack is the first one in this saga in which India the state unquestionably used weapons on Pakistan territory. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this item has been pulled for the time being, per discussion at WP:ERRRORS, it is orange tagged and seemingly unstable with possible POV pushing. If the issues are sorted out it can be reinstated. — Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm confused as to why this got pulled without an immediate replacement. It's clearly the most notable world event of the week even if it doesn't escalate further. Can we not just come up with a simple NPOV sentence about the skirmish that mirrors whatever reputable news outlets are calling it? --Posted byPikamander2(Talk) at 18:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is POV concerns in the article, so article quality is not met, not an issue with the blurb sentence. Natg 19 (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse pull Every time I looked at this, it seemed to be poor quality with misinformation, partisan claims and little independent confirmation of the facts. Per WP:ARBIP, India/Pakistan is a controversial topic and so care and caution is required. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: With the papal conclave starting tomorrow (7th May), I propose to post it. Once a new pope gets elected, the blurb can be replaced by "Cardinal XYZ is elected Pope ABC". Conclave article is quite comprehensive; propose posting only on the 7th. Khuft (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the new pope is chosen. The last several conclaves have only taken two days, I don't see a point in posting the beginning of the conclave when it'll need to be replaced a day later. Estreyeria (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait on principle. I actually sympathize in spirit with the conclave itself being newsworthy, but the issue is that we have an article quality criterion for a reason. We should guide readers to visit the bolded article only once it has met our quality standards. Even if it is "ok" now, if we preemptively post it before the "main event" so to speak (the selection of a new pope), then we won't be able to make a quality assessment about the article's substantive coverage of the conclave and the new pope (checking for adequate prose, references, readability, etc), before it goes up on the main page. FlipandFlopped㋡19:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and suggest close. This is premature. Assuming article quality is up to scratch, the actual election of the new pope will be posted per ITNR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Weak Support It's a pretty slow burner as geopolitical hot spots go, but periodic attacks on shipping, and retaliatory strikes are still happening. Article quality appears adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been caused by the Gaza war, but it is in its current state a completely different conflict from what's happening in Gaza 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)16:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ceasefire just happened between the US and the houthis so this conflict isn't really that important for ongoing now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Israeli strikes yesterday and today were limited/retaliatory and unlikely to routinely continue, while the U.S. just announced they’ve reached a ceasefire for their strikes. TheKip(contribs)23:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: I know in normal time this is not worth ITN as it is a 'procedural vote', but today's vote is first time in Federal Republic of Germany's history that the Bundestag elects a chancellor canadiate in the second vote, so I feel it might worth ITN. But still let community decides. Haers6120 (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support for altblurb or altblurb2 - its not that often that a chancellor is elected in germany, the last three were in 2021, 2005 and 1998. --LennBr (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We posted the election result, which is an ITN/R item, so no need to post today's political drama. As for the historical first, it sounds more suitable for DYK.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the ITNR tag, because per WP:ITNR, it only applies to Changes, reelections or reappointments in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election. We already posted the election. The posted blurb then was In the German federal election, the CDU/CSU, led by Friedrich Merz (pictured), wins the most seats in the Bundestag, so this was already posted. Departure– (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read this in the exact opposite way. The emphasis in my opinion is the CDU/CSU parliamentary victory, not the leadership of Merz. My reading of that ITNR note is that we should not post the same story twice, e.g. the election of Donald Trump and the inauguration of Donald Trump, so this does not qualify, as a parliamentary election is not the same story as the changing of a German chancellor. Without knowing anything about German politics, I would not assume that these are the same story. Natg 19 (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support first blurb. the newsworthy story here is the failure to elect in the first vote. This isn't DYK, it's major political news. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose given that we typically post the result of the election itself, not subsequent appointment itself. Especially given that the outcome which was widely expected, ultimately did happen. If Merz failed to get elected on the second attempt and/or had to step down as a Chancellor candidate, then it clearly would be so notable that it should be posted. In any case, the first blurb should not be used the way it is phrased. It sounds a tad too sensationalistic for ITN. It would be better phrased as "after failing to secure a majority in the first round". Gust Justice (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably this isn't the election result; it's the result of the coalition agreement being formed. If different parties banded together Merz wouldn't be chancellor since it isn't the general election that decides who the chancellor will be, rather it is dependant on how the subsequent negotiations go. ✨ 4 🧚♂amKING22:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support- election result is one thing, actual change of the head of the government is another. It was not 100% certain that Merz would become the Chancellor, that depended on the coalition agreement.Wi1-ch (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is in the news and quite significant. In any case, it's clearly ITN/R as the Chancellor heads the executive and the first vote shows that this wasn't a sure thing. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is the same case as when Donald Trump was inaugurated. We posted the election with a big picture if Merz, so we don't post the inauguration, even though there was a bit of drama and it's a couple of months later. If someone else had ended up being Chancellor them of course that would be a different thing. — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trump becoming president required the Congress to certify the results of the election, and as we've seen in recent history that is no longer a given. There isnt any real difference here, the ITN/R is for results of elections, and only have changes in heads of state/government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election. The change was already posted as part of a general election. nableezy - 16:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support original blurb This is a change in leader, which is ITN/R. The fact that he was not elected on the first vote is also noteworthy and doesn't really lengthen the blurb too much, so I would prefer that in the blurb. --SpectralIon17:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought I support Alt1 and believe this does meet ITN/R , as this is a change of head of government. The previous blurb that was posted was for the parliamentary election (In the German federal election, the CDU/CSU, led by Friedrich Merz (pictured), wins the most seats in the Bundestag), not for the election of the chancellor. Natg 19 (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Federal election already posted on 24 February: In the German federal election, the CDU/CSU, led by Friedrich Merz (pictured), wins the most seats in the Bundestag. per Departure. Grimes217:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The story here is that just because he leads the largest party, and as negotiated a coalition agreement, him becoming chancellor was not a formality, even though everyone thought it would be. Also, the election was over two months ago - even if it were the same story (which it isn't) it wouldn't be problematic to post it again after such a long interval. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt2 per ITNR. Sure the election already happened, but it wasn't a formal change of government as we still didn't know what the coalition's composition would be. Scuba18:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree this is technically not ITNR because the election result itself was already posted. However, I would analogize this situation to how we have, in the past, posted two blurbs related to Mark Carney and also other countries with parliamentary systems. One vote about a new PM becoming the new Prime Minister, and another about the election itself. Even though both aren't ITNR and they are two related events part of the same overarching "story", in the circumstances they both could be notable enough to warrant an independent blurb. The surrounding political drama and in-depth news coverage over the failed vote makes this true: even if it is not ITNR, it is a distinct event which is in the news and being covered by the RS. FlipandFlopped㋡19:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Normally this would not be posted, but I think the failure of the first vote, which was supposed to be a mere formality pushes it over the edge. That failure also resulted in more international news coverage than it otherwise would have gotten. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions20:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of the electoral process here. Winning the highest number of seats nearly never results in a path straight to governing, as the the vote share is split between many parties and unless one happens to get over 50% it doesn't mean anything. It is the electoral capabilities and negotiations which determine who will get the highest office, a process which can take weeks, months (like here) or even sometimes years (Belgian, Bulgarian crises for example) which means that this is on fact the result and event that dermines who governs, not the vote itself. Restored ITN/R the Chancellor in Germany is the head of state government. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In no way shape or form is this ITN/R. Or, at least, per all known past application of the ITN/R rules. Where there's an election we post that. The subsequent changing of leader is assumed, and is not then posted as a duplicate. — Amakuru (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: I strongly disagree. The election doesn't determine the head of government, it merely decides which party gets how many seats. The only reason Merz was hailed as the winner was due to political predictions and likely outcome of this process of choosing the chancellor, which happens after the election. Technically CDU could have joined a coalition with the AFD, which was unlikely only due to political will of those two parties, or if they wished, they could have chosen a different chancellor in their coalition agreement with SPD. The election result does not determine any of this. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, by the same token we should have posted Trump's inauguration, because the election then didn't decide who would be president, it merely selected which parties could send delegates to the electoral college to decide the president. The fact is, it was widely reported after the election that Merz would be chancellor based on the results and the stated intentions of the parties, we posted the election on that basis with a picture of him, and now - lo and behold - he is chancellor. We've simply posted the same story twice. And yes, there was a bit of shenanigans yesterday when he didn't win the first vote, but so what. That was just a flash-in-the-pan suited to a news ticker, and it's not that aspect of it that's been posted today. I don't object to the story being posted on its own merits, if people so desire, but I do object to the same story being posted twice masquerading as ITN/R both times. It's one or the other. — Amakuru (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's been some time since the election, and the failure on the first ballot is notable in itself. Certainly more notable than the World Snooker Championship and some of the other sports events that, Lord only knows why, get to be ITN/R This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ITN's purpose is to incentivize feature quality content about recent events; "significance" is just a secondary thing. Having a list at ITNR balances the prominence of different sports and incentivizes them all. Plus, you're drastically underestimating the significance of this year's World Snooker Championship, but that's another discussion to be had. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kiril Simeonovski, I don't think that the procedural second round is noteworthy enough to entail a blurb on its own and as mentioned before, the election result was posted as well. Ornithoptera (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three traffic police officers and two gunmen are killed and at least four others, including a police officer and two other shooters, are injured in a mass shooting and shootout by gunmen in Makhachkala, Dagestan, Russia. One of the attackers fled in a police car. (Reuters)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Support - article looks in good shape. Just finished watching the game, very entertaining and congrats to the first winner from China! — Amakuru (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, but it will make an entertaining TFA down the line! I believe he may be the amateur winner too, although presumably that's somewhat nuanced... — Amakuru (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone has managed to take a picture in the auditorium (where phones are banned) I think it's probably unlikely; someone may have managed to meet the players before or after play, I suppose. Black Kite (talk)10:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Phone use is prohibited during match-play (although this is sometimes ignored and elicits rebukes from the referee), but may be used at other times? So a photo may not be so unlikely. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment: this is an excellent article which deserves a lot of praise. It is exemplary for ITN sports items; I wish they were all like this. Congratulations to everyone who worked on it, particularly HurricaneHiggins who seems to have been the lead author. Modest Geniustalk11:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marine salvage experts begin operations to recover the superyachtBayesian which sank in August 2024 and killed seven people, including British billionaire tech magnate Mike Lynch and members of his family. (CTV News)
At least three people are killed, fifteen others are injured, including children, and several apartments are destroyed in a gas explosion at an apartment block in Moscow, Russia. (UNN)(News.AZ)
Five people, including four Iranian citizens, are arrested for planning to carry out a terrorist attack at a single location in London, United Kingdom. Separately, three other Iranian men are arrested in London on suspicion of a national security offense as part of an unrelated investigation. (CTV News)
The first round of the Romanianpresidential election is held with eleven candidates on the ballot. George Simion leads the first round with 40% of the vote. As no candidate has won over 50% of the vote, a run-off between the first two candidates will be held on May 18. (BBC News)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose 1,250 characters of text means it's a stub. Three paragraphs of career, of which one entirely unsourced, as with the claim he was an assistant manager. I don't know why articles are continuously nominated in a condition like this. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Article needs a lot of work and a lot more prose, especially on results, aftermath, and the candidates. Not sure what the precedent is for 2-round elections is but this is global headlines nonetheless in what will likely be a knife edge runoff. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Support as of now So far, the article looks comprehensive and well referenced. I believe with the ongoing rapid update, it will even be better. SurveyMonkey...13:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What? We post the result of the elections, not an interim first round result. Wait for the second round, it's only two weeks away. — Amakuru (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posting a preliminary election result, support posting the PM's resignation when a) it happens and b) the article is properly updated. Bremps...18:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support only after May 18 run-off We can post the result of presidential election once second round official result is revealed on May 18 after election runoff vote. Given that in the country use runoff system and no candidates had more than 50% of votes, the blurb needs to be on hold until after May 18 runoff election results. Regarding the resignation of PM, i Support them to be included if the blurb was updated, as long as it didn't prematurely coincided with posting of first round election results. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose When the debate is over importance, we should gauge not based on personal opinion but rather whether it is being picked up by reliable sources and covered in depth. In this case, there is no significant coverage from major outlets like the NYT, BBC, CBC, etc. There is really only a hodgepodge of miscellaneous articles from the AP, some European news sources, and one article in the Toronto Star. FlipandFlopped㋡15:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support Except for the quotes section (which I removed) that can be moved to the sister project, this seems whole and well-cited enough. Writing is a little bit sentimental but it's not major enough to stop posting. Bremps...18:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Berkshire HathawayCEOWarren Buffett announces that he will step down as CEO by the end of the year at the company's annual shareholder meeting. Greg Abel will take over as CEO, pending board approval. (CNN)
A woman is killed in Thessaloniki, Greece, after a bomb she was carrying explodes in her hands, also damaging several nearby storefronts and vehicles. The bomb was possibly intended to be placed outside a nearby bank. (AP News)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment: Bibliography needs references. Aside from the introduction, the body of the article does not appear to mention his political career outside of the election result tables (also unreferenced). SpencerT•C19:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
The blurb alone will do for Singapore, we don't need the photo for this as the Australian election is more significant; per nom's comment that the results are a foregone conclusion. - Mailer Diablo16:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If both items are posted up at about the same time, it is customary to delay the switching to the second item's photo for about 24 hours. – robertsky (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb0, as it's important to note that this supermajority is simply a continuation of the norm rather than something new, as other users have noted. Loytra (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the first round of the Romanian election today, with a second round expected on the 18th... lots of elections going on now I suppose. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Support altblurb 2 as the initial blurb suggests a plurality win and therefore minority government, when all the major media is projecting a majority government. Melmann11:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite the same as the Canadian Labour Party won a plurality of seats, while the Australian Labor Party seems to be on track to win a majority of seats. Prince Of Iso (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb2 BBC's even calling it a "landslide" now. Other blurbs would be more appropriate in a plurality result. Yo.dazo (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb 2, because as @331dot pointed out, the Australian election already resulted in a majority even in the current unfinished vote counting, not a plularity minority like the Canadian election. Additionally, lean waitfor atleast 2-3 hours just for the final seat results, even if it's just a marginal result for Labor's majority seat number. SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks to be in good shape, it's long enough and has a good amount of prose. Could use some more info in the results section, though. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the official count is not done, maybe no one will. Also most election results page don't even have it, aside from sometimes a boldened "Results from XXXX year Country X Election" text. SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax[http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
Done Fixed. — EF5 17:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC).jpg/250px-Pope_Leo_XIV_on_the_loggia_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)