Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: Long Boi

{{Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/Archives}}

Archives of posted stories: Wikipedia:In the news/Posted/Archives

{{Anchor|Nominations}}

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.

{{section sizes}}

----

{{cot|Portal:Current events/2025 May 12}}

{{Portal:Current events/2025 May 12}}

{{cob}}

----

{{ITN candidate

| article = Sharpe James

| recent deaths = yes

| sources = [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/12/nyregion/sharpe-james-dead.html NY Times]

| updated = yes

| nominator = Thriley

| updaters =

| nom cmt = American politician. Former mayor of Newark, New Jersey

| sign = Thriley (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{atop

| result = Editors think that Trump policies are too volatile to be suitable for ITN. Schwede66 18:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{ITN candidate

| article = China–United States trade war

| article2 = Tariffs in the second Trump administration

| image =

| blurb = China and the USA make mutual tariff reductions to de-escalate their trade war.

| recent deaths = no

| ongoing = no

| ITNR = no

| altblurb =

| altblurb2 =

| sources = [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cedy09wq25qt BBC], [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/12/business/china-us-tariffs.html NYT]

| updated =

| nominator = Andrew Davidson

| creator =

| updaters =

| nom cmt = This is like a ceasefire in a hot war and seems quite a significant withdrawal from the precipice. What the final outcome will be is still uncertain but so it goes...

| sign = Andrew🐉(talk) 11:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

:*Oppose, anything that this White House does is prone to massive and total reversals at the drop of a hat, so there’s no real point in posting anything policy-wise that they announce short of a declaration of war or launching an internal self-coup. RPH (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Its a 90 day pause. Not yet permanent. And unlike a combat situation ceasefire where we can tell if things are changed immediately, the impact of a pause in overseas trade will take weeks to see. Masem (t) 12:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem. TwistedAxe [contact] 14:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Good faith, but tariff rates from this administration are too volatile for us to post something like a temporary reduction to massive tariffs that he himself put in place just a few weeks ago. A few months from now, the massive tariffs on not only China but also the entire rest of the world will all be unpaused, and who knows whether he'll keep them, scrap them all permanently, or raise them even higher.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 14:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. We can't post every change in tariffs that Trump introduces / cancels / changes after a few days, especially in deals with individual countries. A lot of the US-UK tariffs were just removed or reduced by a new deal a few days ago, and I wouldn't expect that to be in ITN. Besides, this is removing a barrier that Trump himself introduced just a few weeks ago; it's performative politics designed to generate headlines not make sensible economic policy. Modest Genius ^talk 14:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose This might meet WP:TRUMPHATE and not everything trump does deserves to be put on ITN, only something really outrageous and will have reprecussions might be considered for ITN. 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:F0CF:3A91:769A:29BB (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::Oppose - given the track record so far, what comes up must go down. ^EF⁵ 17:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{ITN candidate

| article = Kurdistan Workers' Party insurgency

| image =

| blurb = The Kurdistan Workers' Party announces it will disband, ending its insurgency against Turkey.

| recent deaths = no

| ongoing = no

| ITNR = no

| altblurb = The Kurdistan Workers' Party declares the end of its 46-year insurgency in Turkey, announcing its intent to dissolve

| altblurb2 =

| sources = [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-12/kurdish-separatist-group-pkk-ends-40-year-war-against-turkey Bloomberg News], [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/12/kurdish-militants-pkk-to-disarm-turkey-abdullah-ocalan Guardian]

| updated =

| nominator = ElijahPepe

| creator =

| updaters =

| nom cmt =

| sign = elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• Support, with either the insurgency or the Kurdistan Workers' Party as target articles. Historical and comparable to the dissolution of ETA, IRA, etc. Brandmeister^talk 08:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support with insurgency as target article. Proposed altblurb highlighting the length of the conflict. Insurgency "against Turkey" is a strange phrase. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support The end of a major insurgency. ArionStar (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above. TwistedAxe [contact] 13:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support huge development. Shadow4dark (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support on notability Article is generally well-sourced, but may need a little clean-up. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support altblurb in principle, but the insurgency article needs more updates. This is a major step in a serious conflict. The article is generally good, but only the lead & infobox have been updated with the latest events. The '2025 ceasefire' section halts at March this year, with no explanation of the recent events. That needs sorting out, as does the table that is orange-tagged for original research. The article on the party is no better, with just one unreferenced sentence on the ceasefire and a huge copy-paste of the PKK statement, which is probably copyright infringement. Modest Genius ^talk 14:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support per all above, but I concur to wait until Modest Genius' objections have been dealt with to post. Departure– (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support per above. IDB.S (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality About 5 or so unsourced paragraphs, one orange tagged section (which may not need to be tagged but one should check if the sources support the data in that tab) and some bad proseline in the latter third of the article. The item is significant enough for ITN, but quality is far from ready. Masem (t) 15:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support article looks decent with only slight cleanup needs Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support as a huge development in the conflict. Article could use some work but it looks good enough to post. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Orange tag is a show stopper. Masem (t) 19:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support on notability, oppose on quality the end of such a long insurgency is definitely notable enough for ITN, but agree with Masem that the orange tags need to be addressed. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 19:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{cot|Portal:Current events/2025 May 11}}

{{Portal:Current events/2025 May 11}}

{{cob}}

----

{{ITN candidate

| article = 2024–25 Basketball Champions League

| image = Unicaja Cup Ceremony FIBA BCL Athens F4 20250511 (1) (cropped).jpg

| blurb = Unicaja (pictured celebrating) wins the 2024–25 Basketball Champions League.

| recent deaths = no

| ongoing = no

| ITNR = no

| altblurb =

| altblurb2 =

| sources = https://www.championsleague.basketball/en/news/final-four-mvp-carter-leads-unicaja-to-back-to-back-bcl-titles

| updated = yes

| nominator = Mehman

| creator =

| updaters = Erincoktem

| nom cmt =

| sign = Mehman (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• How does this compare with EuroLeague, which is on WP:ITNR?—Bagumba (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The best teams play on the Euroleague, but is on a franchise system just like NBA and what they had wanted to do with the soccer European Super League. This has clubs enter via merit but since the best clubs bypass this competition the level is lower than the Euroleague's. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't even post non-ITN/R sports event {{Strikethrough|as well as do not have a target article}}. Moraljaya67 (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Neither of those are necessarily dealbreakers. There was consensus last month to post Ovechkin's goal record which isn't on ITNR, and there was no target article specifically dedicated to the event chronicled. Left guide (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :There is nothing that says a non ITNR sports event can't be posted, but one must show why, if that event is not at ITNR, its significance to be posted on its own for ITNC. Masem (t) 12:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. The top tier of European basketball is the Euroleague, which we already have on ITNR. Our article on the European professional club basketball system indicates that the Basketball Champions League is a less prestigious competition run by a different organisation. We already post at least three basketball competitions per year and I don't think this one is sufficiently impactful to include as well. Modest Genius ^talk 13:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ITN candidate

| article = Sabu (wrestler)

| recent deaths = yes

| sources = [https://foxsportsradio.iheart.com/content/2025-05-11-legendary-wrestler-sabu-dead-at-60/ Fox Sports Radio]

| updated = yes

| nominator = The C of E

| updaters = The C of E

| nom cmt = Lebanese-American professional wrestler, pioneer of hardcore wrestling

| sign = The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{cot|Portal:Current events/2025 May 10}}

{{Portal:Current events/2025 May 10}}

{{cob}}

----

{{ITN candidate

| article = Bob Cowper

| recent deaths = yes

| sources = https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-11/australian-cricket-bob-cowper-dies-age-84/105279410

| updated = yes

| nominator = HiLo48

| updaters =

| nom cmt = Australian Test cricketer

| sign = HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• Support article looks good Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ITN candidate

| article = Kosmos 482

| image =

| blurb = A 1970s failed Venus probe from the Soviet Union named "Kosmos 482" re-enters the earth's atmosphere, landing west of the island of Java in the Indian Ocean.

| recent deaths = no

| ongoing = no

| ITNR = no

| altblurb = Kosmos 482 lands in a part of the Indian Ocean, west of the city of Jakarta, Indonesia, after losing its tracking over Germany.

| altblurb2 = A failed Venus probe enters the earth's atmosphere over India, landing west of Jakarta, Indonesia, in the eastern Indian Ocean

| sources = [https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/soviet-kosmos-482-spacecraft-crashes-earth-rcna205579 (NBC News)] [https://www.livescience.com/space/space-exploration/soviet-spacecraft-kosmos-482-crashes-back-to-earth-disappearing-into-indian-ocean-after-53-years-in-orbit (Live Science)] [https://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2025/05/07/reentry-prediction-soviet-era-venera-venus-lander-cosmos-482-descent-craft/?utm_source=chatgpt.com (European Space Agency)] [https://apnews.com/article/soviet-venus-spacecraft-kosmos-482-93871c98ca9c09a67219e238ed3e2eaa (AP News)]

| updated =

| nominator = 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:C4D9:BD2C:F4D8:E357

| creator = Smoth 007

| updaters =

| nom cmt = Long anticipated crash landing, considering back in 1972 and 1981, many pieces of the main bus of this probe fell back into earth. a few in 1972, and others in around 1978-1981. There is still ongoing coverage of this probe after it fell. Passes WP:N because of this, it has had coverage before the event and after the event.

| sign = 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:C4D9:BD2C:F4D8:E357 (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• Comment Blurb should probably contain the words "Venus", "Soviet", and possibly "1970s". Nfitz (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Strong oppose as apparently unimportant. Departure– (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose I personally think it's really cool that a failed 50 year old probe just reentered the atmosphere, but in reality, it just crashed harmlessly into the ocean. I'd say this is good faith, but it's not very important, nor did it have an effect on anything. qw3rty 22:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support original blurb Interesting event getting coverage that would help diversify ITN. An argument could be made that this is DYK and not ITN but I would personally like to see this posted. The article is in good shape. I also fixed the grammar of the original blurb. --SpectralIon 03:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Needs work It seems that the location is based on estimates rather than observation and different authorities have different theories. See [https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2025/05/10/soviet-spacecraft-cosmos-482-location-after-reentry-baffling-watchers/ Location After Reentry Baffling Watchers]. The article likewise says that the location is not confirmed. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Misleading blurbs The alt blurbs read as if the probe landed sofly somewhere on the island of Java, near Jakarta. The original blurb sounds more correct, although too wordy. Besides that, weak oppose in terms of notability - no damage and no injuries; besides, space junk crashes frequently on Earth. Khuft (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality. The article really glosses over how this mission failed. Its interesting about it finally reentering the atmosphere and crash, but the article needs to properly reflect the whole mission. Masem (t) 17:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Atmospheric entry#Uncontrolled and unprotected entries stuff enters the atmosphere every day. While this is more significant then most space garage, it is not significant enough to be worth mentioning. Perhaps If the lander was found, but it was not and probably will not be. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• :we have the technology to go underwater, we might be able to find it Shaneapickle (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:strong support If launches are important and posted, so is the other side.Sportsnut24 (talk) 06:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::ITN does not post every space launch. Modest Genius ^talk 13:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. It came down roughly when predicted and fell into the ocean. There was no damage and no hardware has been recovered. This was a mildly diverting story for a few days, but will quickly be forgotten. This would make a nice DYK if the article can be sufficiently expanded (or brought to GA standard), but it's not significant enough for an ITN blurb. Modest Genius ^talk 13:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose One probe not a significant dent on this lot? And no significant dent on anything when it landed... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose This would be a good DYK, but isn't significant enough to be ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's been over a week since creation so unless we can get this article to 70,000 bytes within the next few days (current size 17,000 bytes) or to GA quality it won't find itself at DYK. Departure– (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ITN candidate

| article = 2025 India–Pakistan standoff

| image =

| blurb = India and Pakistan agree to a full and immediate ceasefire after days of conflict.

| recent deaths = no

| ongoing = no

| ITNR = no

| altblurb =

| altblurb2 =

| sources = [https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cwy3jnl3nvwt BBC News]

| updated =

| nominator = Johndavies837

| creator =

| updaters =

| nom cmt = Conflict appears to have ended. Full ceasefire.

| sign = Johndavies837 (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• Support - Should be correct according to multiple sources Anonymous Anon Human (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Seriously? Support. Wasn't expecting a ceasefire after just a few days, but y'know. — ^EF⁵ 13:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support, Gandhi can break his fast. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose on the quality issue raised in the last related nomination, in that there were at least five separate articles covering this one flare-up and rife with POV issues. Significance of this is ITN-worthy but we need these articles sorted out first. Masem (t) 14:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Is there a reason why we can't merge 2025 India–Pakistan standoff with 2025 India–Pakistan conflict? Besides a few days between them they largely cover the same ground. DecafPotato (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::There's also 2025 India–Pakistan air engagements, that's almost completely devoid of content, other than 2 or 3 sentences in the lead, that aren't discussed in the actual article. Nfitz (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose we keep posting the same, relatively minor, story. The cease-fire line, and the occasional skirmish, are over 75-years old. Notwithstanding that, the articles are a hot mess; why there's actually 2 3 articles I don't know. Nfitz (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :2 nuclear powers lobbing missiles at each other's major population centers is minor? 2A00:23C8:B00:AD01:D47A:F13F:748C:E4DE (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nfitz :2606:9400:98A0:92A0:C4D9:BD2C:F4D8:E357 (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Wait Reports indicate that Pakistan has violated the ceasefire, which could lead to a resumption of hostilities.--9ninety (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose As per Nfitz, article quality is not sufficient for ITN. Also, the ceasefire has seemingly ceased. [https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/india-pakistan-latest-minister-says-explosions-heard-over-srinagar-in-kashmir-just-hours-after-ceasefire-deal/ar-AA1EhBkX] --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose, it has been broken. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Strong support on notability, as the sole blurb needed for the conflict as the previous one was pulled per ERRORS. The ceasefire's shaky, yes, but per Al-Jazeera the ceasefire has been agreed to by both sides and the "explosions" appear routine and nothing's happened since then; this is akin to what Israel calls a ceasefire, and most of us rightfully have no problem posting those on their own merits. Oppose on quality, as the article that should be the target, 2025 India–Pakistan conflict, still has two orange tags. Departure– (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Reports indicate that both countries have already violated the ceasefire. This makes it about as credible as any ceasefire Israel makes. --SpectralIon 03:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Wait – More recent news indicates that the ceasefire still holds despite several violations (per CNN [https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/india-pakistan-operation-sindoor-05-10-25]), but those violations and wording from Indian officials indicate that the ceasefire is shaky at best. ArkHyena (they/any) 11:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

{{cot|Portal:Current events/2025 May 9}}

{{Portal:Current events/2025 May 9}}

{{cob}}

----

{{ITN candidate

| article = Tom Farmer

| recent deaths = yes

| sources = [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgn3ngvm8eo BBC News]

| updated = yes

| nominator = Sahaib

| updaters = Tj7755

| nom cmt = Scottish businessman.

| sign = Sahaib (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• Support article looks good Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ITN candidate

| article = Margot Friedländer

| recent deaths = yes

| sources = [https://www.dw.com/en/holocaust-survivor-margot-friedl%C3%A4nder-dies-at-103/a-72496380 Deutsche Welle]

| updated = yes

| nominator = Gerda Arendt

| updator = Qaswa, Gerda Arendt

| creator = Fieryninja

| nom cmt = 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.

| sign = --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• Support - I see no issues. Sourcing is ok.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Well-written and sourced. Jusdafax (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support Interesting person. B class article with no issues. Grimes2 14:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Posted – Schwede66 23:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ITN candidate

| article = Peter Morwood

| recent deaths = yes

| sources = https://locusmag.com/2025/05/peter-morwood-1956-2025/

| updated = yes

| nominator = Tacticnerd

| nom cmt = Prolific fantasy novelist and screenwriter.

| sign = Tacticnerd (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{ITN candidate

| article = Douglas Gibson (politician)

| recent deaths = yes

| sources = https://www.enca.com/news-top-stories/da-veteran-douglas-gibson-dies-aged-82

| updated = yes

| nominator = Lefcentreright

| nom cmt = South African lawyer, politician and diplomat. Died today.

| sign =  Lefcentreright  Discuss  16:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{ITN candidate

| article = David Souter

| recent deaths = yes

| sources = [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/09/us/david-souter-dead.html NYT]

| updated = yes

| nominator = P1

| updaters =

| nom cmt = US Supreme Court Justice

| sign = P1^{(she/her, talk/contribs)} 13:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• Support No CNs or maintenance tags; has been reported by NPR and the NYT. _pbp 16:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support Article is in good shape, no CNs and definitely more than adequate length. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 01:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support, hopefully will be added soon. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above supports, ready to post. Jusdafax (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above. RIP. Davey2116 (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Sourcing looks good. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Posted – Schwede66 23:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{cot|Portal:Current events/2025 May 8}}

{{Portal:Current events/2025 May 8}}

{{cob}}

----

{{ITN candidate

| article = Chet Lemon

| recent deaths = yes

| sources = [https://www.mlb.com/news/chet-lemon-dies MLB.com]

| updated = yes

| nominator = 240F:7A:6253:1:9089:B7AD:40C0:453D

| updaters = Cbl62

| nom cmt = American baseball player and 1984 World Series champion.

| sign = 240F:7A:6253:1:9089:B7AD:40C0:453D (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• Support. One of the all-time greats. Aritcle in good condition. Cbl62 (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Well-written and referenced, no tags, ready to post. Jusdafax (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support - looks good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Multiple outstanding sourcing tags.—Bagumba (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|Posted, wording has stabilised. Stephen 02:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{ITN candidate

| article = 2025 papal conclave

| blurb = Cardinals elect Pope Leo XIV.

| altblurb = Robert Francis Prevost of the United States is elected as Pope Leo XIV.

| altblurb2 = White smoke emerges from the Sistine Chapel indicating the election of a new pope of the Catholic Church.

| altblurb3 = Robert Francis Prevost of the United States is elected as Pope Leo XIV, becoming the first North American pope of the Catholic Church.

| altblurb4 = Pope Leo XIV is elected as the pope in the 2025 papal conclave

| recent deaths = no

| ongoing = no

| ITNR = yes

| sources = [https://www.nbcnews.com/world/the-vatican/live-blog/conclave-2025-live-updates-rcna205525 NBC]

| image = Future Pope Leo XIV in 2012 headshot.jpg

| caption = Leo XIV

| updated =

| nominator = EF5

| creator = Davey2116

| updaters =

| nom cmt = Pope has been elected! Will probably be announced soon today, so nominating now.

| sign = ^EF⁵ 16:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

:Oppose and strong close as premature - re-open when the new pope is announced. Departure– (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::“Premature”? The election’s over. ^EF⁵ 16:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::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)

::::Give it an hour. ^EF⁵ 16:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The election of a pope is newsworthy of itself; can always update the blurb when the name is announced. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  16:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The election isn't newsworthy. The result is. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::We need to know who and the quality of the article by then. This is ITNR and dependent on article quality. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::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. — ^EF⁵ 16:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Departure–, pope has been announced. Was betting on "John", but I guess he took "Leo". — ^EF⁵ 17:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

: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)

:Wait until the new Pope is formally presented at St. Peter's and given his name. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 16:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Keep open It's probably being announced within the hour. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Pope Leoe XIV has been announced but wait until article is updated. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

: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)

• 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/_{contributions} 16:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

: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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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. — ^EF⁵ 16:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• {{small|Bet it wasn't Snoop Dog after all.... Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}
• :Snoop on the… chair of popeiness? Doesn't sound as good as [https://www.snoopermarket.com/products/limited-edition-30-year-doggystyle-anniversary-snoop-on-the-stoop?srsltid=AfmBOopCIasaBMirYkHvKXVIGT8M9FYxeTWhjK9mHiey3B0WqJbHWyoS Snoop on a Stoop], but I'l take it. ^EF⁵ 17:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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 Genius ^talk 17:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :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 🧚‍♂am KING  17:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• UPDATE: The new Pope is elected. The new pope is Robert Francis Prevost (Leo XIV). 103.111.102.118 (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support Alt 2 we know who pope is now! Leo XIV! Scuba 17:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Wait a tiny bit. We need more information about Leo in the article and media commentary before posting. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• : 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)
• :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)

:Support He is Pope now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support: Now pope. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - two CN tags. Departure– (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Make that a strong oppose - Pope Leo XIV lacks a lot of comprehensiveness for this to be on the main page. Departure– (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::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)
• :{{done}} Fixed. — ^EF⁵ 17:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support Pope Leo XIV is the new Pope and that is newsworthy. --Plumber (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:support I mean, it's the pope. Not much to say here. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support AltBlurb 1 as he is now officially the new pope. 2605:8D80:4A1:F2A1:B033:98FF:B621:1DA0 (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support Altblurb 1 Election of a new pope is globally important, so it should be a no-brainer. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::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)

:EXTREMELY STRONG SUPPORT This should be put up immediately. 69.245.20.79 (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Items need not be put up immediately and quality is a key point of ITN entries appearing on the main page. Departure– (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• 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)
• Support - article doesn't look too bad for a start, and high-profile election with significant coverage. Master of Time (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - this was the wording of the blurb for the last pope in case it's useful:
• Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina (pictured) is elected as Pope Francis, becoming the first Latin American pope of the Catholic Church. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Looks like alt3 is the equivalent, I would support it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Yeah I based altblurb3 on this. Gust Justice (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support. And choosing Alternate Blurb III. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 17:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Support AltBlurb 3 This is closest to the last blurb when Pope Francis was elected NewishIdeas (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Support but his name is spelled wrong in the current blurb. Robert Francis Prevost, not Provost Big Paulie (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Super strong support alt3 ArionStar (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support but I’d agree Peru deserves a mention since he is a dual national. Jusdafax (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Posted. Sandstein 17:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support Despite the page for Pope Leo XIV updating quickly, it's good enough to support. This is a major historical event. Bremps... 17:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support Vicar of Christ{{nbsp}}... or Lord of the World? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support Prefer one or four. GMG^talk 17:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support per everyone 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:41D7:E0E4:C05E:81AD (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've raised a few concerns about this current blurb at WP:ERRORS - discussion on these errors and other, related issues continues there. Departure– (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support adding an image. History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

: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)

:*"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. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:*:I already added this at WP:ERRORS, but I agree and much prefer "born in the United States" as opposed to "United States-born". Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 21:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I strongly agree. There is just no need for a cumbersome compound adjective there. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: Already changed by King of Hearts, 21:30, 8 May 2025. Natg 19 (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• 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)
• :End with "of American and Peruvian nationality" Bremps... 23:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• :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)
• :American....and [https://www.bbc.com/ British], [https://www.cbc.ca/news Canadian], [https://www.abc.net.au/news Australian], [https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/new-pope-elected-white-smoke-from-sistine-chapel/article69554490.ece Indian], [https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/560395/live-us-born-cardinal-robert-prevost-named-as-pope-leo-xiv New Zealander], [https://www.irishtimes.com/ Irish], [https://guardian.ng/news/american-prevost-leo-xiv-elected-pope-appears-on-st-peters-basilica-balcony/#google_vignette Nigerian], [https://www.lemonde.fr/?preferred_lang=fr French], [https://www.reforma.com/ Mexican], etc. DecafPotato (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::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. [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/05/08/robert-prevost-new-pope-conclave/ 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)
• :::> we should always refer to a wider geographical area
• :::Disagree, why should we? We should do what the reliable sources say. Most reliable sources linked say US or American, not North American. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Being the first from a continent is more significant than being the first from a country on that continent.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: This image may work better for the occasion: :File:Pope Leo XIV on the loggia (cropped).jpg ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 12:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Not 100% sure if a twitter thread is acceptable for use to presume a free license. Masem (t) 12:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::The owner of the media outlet explicit gives CC-BY-SA 4.0 permission in the thread. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 12:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC) thumb
• :::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)
• :::{{ping|Amakuru}} The parent image, :File:Pope Leo XIV on the loggia.jpg, has been verified at VRT. I would now suggest :File:Pope Leo XIV 2.jpg as it's a bit more cropped in. File:Pope Leo XIV 2.jpg ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::: Whatever the license, the current image shows much more face. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. Can we bolden the pope's name at this point. The article is much improved. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :No. We typically don’t bolden links to articles of elected heads of state.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{tqb|Friedrich Merz is elected Chancellor of Germany and sworn in alongside his coalition government.}}Indeed, Merz is not head of state but head of government, but the Pope is also head of government as well. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :: 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)
• :::Seconded. I think, especially with the Pope, the man is more noteworthy than the process. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::For what it's worth, the blurb for Pope Francis at the time had elected as non-bold and Pope Francis as bold. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Should use this photo TheLoyalOrder (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::File:Cardinal Robert F. Prevost at the Consistory on 30 September 2023 (cropped portrait).jpg TheLoyalOrder (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Comment His article has a new photo now that is high quality and free. AsaQuathern (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::never mind AsaQuathern (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :wait this is actually a good photo. AsaQuathern (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::File:Cardinal Robert F. Prevost at the Consistory on 30 September 2023 (cropped portrait).jpg

:comment why the nationality? We din't list the last as the first from the Americas?Sportsnut24 (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Sounds like we did? {{tq|Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina (pictured) is elected as Pope Francis, becoming the first Latin American pope of the Catholic Church}} Natg 19 (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

{{abot}}

{{cot|Portal:Current events/2025 May 7}}

{{Portal:Current events/2025 May 7}}

{{cob}}

----

{{atop

| result = Editors disagree that this is "unprecedented". Schwede66 23:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{ITN candidate

| article = 2025 papal conclave

| recent deaths = no

| ongoing = add

| ITNR = no

| sources =

| updated =

| nominator = Abcmaxx

| creator =

| updaters =

| nom cmt = Unprecedented process so not the usual electoral nomination, top news worldwide will likely last a few days.

| sign = Abcmaxx (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• Oppose - This is like posting the US election on polling day and removing it the next. Could be over tomorrow for all we know. ^EF⁵ 21:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Wait - Wait until a pope is chosen, then post the results Egg470 (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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)

::Not a regular occurrence though is it? Especially as the last one was 12 years ago. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I would agree that it is not "regular" (every 4 years etc), but unprecedented is incorrect. Natg 19 (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Question What makes this papal conclave "unprecedented"? Cambalachero (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::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)

:::Well, Francis’ was also in the digitized age. 2013 wasn’t the caveman era! ^EF⁵ 22:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

:Oppose this was nominated yesterday (and failed), we also don't post elections to ongoing. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 23:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{cot|Portal:Current events/2025 May 6}}

{{Portal:Current events/2025 May 6}}

{{cob}}

----

{{ITN candidate

| article = Vakhtang Machavariani

| recent deaths = yes

| sources = [https://frontnews.ge/en/news/vakhtang-machavariani-renowned-georgian-conductor-composer-dies-aged-74 Front News]

| updated = yes

| nominator = Gerda Arendt

| updaters = Gerda Arendt, GRuban

| nom cmt = Georgian and Russian conductor and composer, expanded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

| sign = --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{ITN candidate

| article = Joseph Nye

| recent deaths = yes

| sources = [https://asia.nikkei.com/Life-Arts/Obituaries/Joseph-Nye-Harvard-scholar-who-coined-soft-power-dies-at-88 Nikkei Asia], [https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/5/8/joseph-nye-dies/ The Harvard Crimson]

| updated = yes

| nominator = 240F:7A:6253:1:DD5F:9F93:4BE7:236D

| updaters = TDKR Chicago 101

| nom cmt =

| sign = 240F:7A:6253:1:DD5F:9F93:4BE7:236D (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

:Support missing some citations but overall seems comprehensive enough, and doesn't have any glaring flaws V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

: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)

• Support - Looks good to go now.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose One unsourced paragraph, which has two citiation needed tags. The list of works is unsourced; MOS:LISTOFWORKS is clear on need for sourcing: {{tq2|Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet.}} ISBNs would suffice.—Bagumba (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Atop|This was recently discussed. I/P is posted now and ongoing in that context can be discussed when appropriate. Stephen 02:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{ITN candidate

| article = 2025 India–Pakistan standoff

| image =

| blurb =

| recent deaths = no

| ongoing = add

| ITNR = no

| altblurb =

| altblurb2 =

| sources =

| updated =

| nominator = ArionStar

| creator =

| updaters =

| nom cmt = Mainly due to the 2025 Indian missile strike on Pakistan.

| sign = ArionStar (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• 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)
• :Same argument as the last discussion: if it continues, if it continues… The crisis is going on! ArionStar (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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)

{{abot}}

{{ITN candidate

| article = 2025 India–Pakistan conflict

| article2 =

| image =

| blurb = India launches missile strikes on multiple cities in Pakistan.

| recent deaths = no

| ongoing = no

| ITNR = no

| altblurb = Pakistan retaliates after Indian missile strikes.

| altblurb2 = Pakistan retaliates with missile strikes after India strikes several cities in Pakistan.

| altblurb3 = Pakistan and India briefly fight each other via airstrikes from 7 to 10 May.

| sources = [https://tribune.com.pk/story/2544343/indian-missile-strikes-hit-muzaffarabad-kotli-and-bahawalpur-amid-escalating-tensions tribune.com.pk] [https://news.sky.com/story/pakistan-attacked-with-missiles-as-india-says-it-targeted-terrorist-camps-13362775 Sky News]

| updated =

| nominator = Chaotic Enby

| creator = Chaotic Enby

| updaters = Hectordej7544

| nom cmt = Developing story, currently updating it.

| sign = Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

: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)

::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)

:::{{ping|Departure–}} article has been expanded. Natg 19 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

: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)

::Agree with that last point, I did put the {{tl|ai-generated}} banner, but it has been removed without explanation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

: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)

: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)

:Support, article could do with more improvement though. Nowhere does the article say cities were targeted, maybe {{tq|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)

::The article was in a state of flux, but now it does look like it is mentioning the cities that have been targeted (Muzaffarabad, Kotli, Bahawalpur and Muridke). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Edit: Apparently, Muridke isn't mentioned in the sources at all, I have removed it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• 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. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 21:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support Major news and escalation. Setarip (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above. ArkHyena (they/any) 22:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support oh god, here we go again... Chorchapu (talk | edits) 22:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Strong oppose on quality of the second article - can we please nominate after the article is more than three sentences long? ^EF⁵ 23:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{yo|EF5}} The original blurb choice doesn't include the second article, only the alt-blurbs do. Left guide (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::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. ^EF⁵ 23:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::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)

:Support, no question on notability. BilboBeggins (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::Support Obviously. ArionStar (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support as well. Sahaib (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support as obvious. Support merge. Jusdafax (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• I've merged the new Pakistani article into the main one and then moved the page to 2025 India–Pakistan strikes. I'll look into posting now. Schwede66 01:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Posted ALT1. Schwede66 01:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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). DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 02:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I second this. There is more emphasis on the Pakistani response than the original strikes. History6042😊 (Contact me) 02:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• {{yo|Schwede66}} I don't see any consensus or support for ALT1, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1289171805#Indian_missile_strikes_on_Pakistan there were seven support !votes (plus the nom) before any alt-blurbs were proposed]. Can you please consider modifying to the original blurb in light of concerns raised above? Left guide (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :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)

: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)

• 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. Schwede66 03:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :ALT1 seems too short, and I've replaced it with ALT2 as per the comments above. - Fuzheado | Talk 03:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::There is currently a requested merge being discussed between the two articles in Alt2. Soni (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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 Genius ^talk 09:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :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)
• ::Update - According to WP:ERRORS the blurb was already adjusted. Soni (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Yes, I was about to come here to say the same. The rewrite by @Amakuru took care of this. - Fuzheado | Talk 12:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Post-posting oppose Bad writing: the country Pakistan is mentioned three times, unnecessarily. ArionStar (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::"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)
• ::::::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. — ^EF⁵ 12:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Ah well, {{u|Sandstein}} has now condensed it down to {{xt|"India conducts missile strikes on Pakistani targets, and Pakistan retaliates"}}. Still has a repetition of Pakistan, but I'm not sure the country works since there are two countries mentioned.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::..and faced retaliation in return? – robertsky (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::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)
• :::::::::"India conducts missile strikes on several Pakistani and Pakistani-controlled cities, with the latter reciprocally retaliating." ArionStar (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::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)
• :::::::::That could also work. {{tq|India and Pakistan exchange missile strikes following the Pahalgam attack in Indian-held Kashmir.}} The only issue is that it might give the impression that the Pahalgam attack is also part of "the news", but having it be unbolded and preceded by "the" should make it clear enough. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::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)
• ::::::::{{tq|India conducts missile strikes in Punjab and Pakistani-held Kashmir, prompting retaliation from Pakistan.}}{{pb}}The repetition is less obvious, and the targets are more explicit. We could also mention that Pakistan's retaliation occurred in Punjab, India and Indian-held Kashmir, but that would be even more repetitive. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :FYI, the article was moved to 2025 India–Pakistan conflict by @Ecrusized, and I have adjusted the link accordingly. A baby trout for moving it unilaterally, but the title is more accurate. The blurb could still use work. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::And just like that, move was reverted and a move discussion is ongoing. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• :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)
• ::I'm not sure how that addresses my point, or what India has stated. Nfitz (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::You cannot just unquestionably claim Pakistan made the first attack into Kashmir. Thus, the Indian missiles on Pakistan count as the first interaction unquestionably known to be between the two states, not just an unofficial terrorist group. And either way, we posted Iran-Pakistan only when Pakistan retaliated. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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 by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 18:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::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)

• 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)
• {{s|Wait}} The topic is extremely newsworthy, but the state of the Wikipedia articles on the general topic is currently waiting for sorting out scope and deciding on mergers: there are at least five articles with almost the same scope: 2025 India–Pakistan strikes, 2025 India–Pakistan air engagements, Operation Bunyanun Marsoos, Indo-Pakistani war of 2025, 2025 India–Pakistan standoff. Until the scope of these articles is sorted out, the quality is likely to remain poor because of the inefficiency in adding parallel content to multiple articles and trying to sort out parallel editorial conflicts. There is no point attracting wide attention to what is currently an editorial mess that needs sorting out. Boud (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC) (update below Boud (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC))
• :To add, there is now apparently a ceasefire [https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-853414], which if true, makes this no longer a newsworthy story (particularly with the quality issues). Masem (t) 12:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::A ceasefire doesn't make the conflict any less newsworthy. It looks like soon there should be snow consensus to merge in most of the sub-articles. Right now, the links have disappeared from the lead even though the merge requests have not been formally closed. The {{t|POV}} and {{t|independent sources}} tags at the top don't really seem to be justified. But the quality of the article as a whole does still need some work: the fact that the merge tags disappeared prior to the merger debates being closed is a sign of chaotic editing ... Boud (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Adding that there have been multiple reports of ceasefire violations, so we're not really sure if the truce is going to last. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::The truce seems to be serious {{small|(the Kant/Paine democratic peace theory seems to more or less apply; disclaimer: WP:OR, only for this parenthesis within an ITN comment, not part of the article)}}, and the parallel-articles chaos seems to be sorting itself out, but overall the ratio of inexperienced to experienced editor activity might be too high for the quality to become acceptable on ITN. It's good that there are lots of new editors motivated to edit, and they'll learn from the experience, but WP:ITNQUALITY could still be some time off. There's even editing opposition to encyclopedic coverage of international law aspects in this article about an international armed conflict. Boud (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support 2025 India–Pakistan conflict is generally looking a lot better quality than it was a few days ago. The merge debates of the main parallel articles have been closed as WP:SNOW and done. There's a standoff with the 2025 India–Pakistan standoff article but that's not a problem - it'll have its scope clarified or else be merged or AfD'd later. There's an RS tag in the timeline section of 2025 India–Pakistan conflict, but I think that's really just an indication that longer term debate about sourcing for South Asian sociopolitical events is needed and either WP:RSP or a subject-specialist WP:RSP page might be needed.{{pb}}My impression is that the quality is enough that new participants will not overwhelm the currently active editors. There seem to be a bunch of moderate-experience editors whose edits are not strictly per WikiLaw but close enough and well-intentioned and with sufficient experience that the editing community together is more or less effective.{{pb}}I've proposed altblurb3 to update to the current content of the article. Boud (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Probably {{tq|"from 7 to 10 May"}} could be removed from the blurb? The word "briefly" already indicates that this (hopefully) has stopped, at least for the moment. Boud (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Atop|No consensus to post an election until the result is announced. Stephen 23:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{ITN candidate

| article = 2025 papal conclave

| image =

| blurb = The papal conclave starts in Rome.

| recent deaths = no

| ongoing = no

| ITNR = no

| altblurb =

| altblurb2 =

| sources =

| updated =

| nominator = Khuft

| creator =

| updaters =

| nom cmt = 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.

| sign = Khuft (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• 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)
• 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. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 19:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Wait until the next pope is elected. Natg 19 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• Wait until a new pope is actually chosen. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 22:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Propose adding to ongoing. BilboBeggins (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::Disagree, this will likely only take a few days, and won't receive the amount of regular updates that ongoing items usually have. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|Consensus will not develop to post without an escalation. Stephen 23:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{ITN candidate

| article = Red Sea crisis

| image =

| blurb =

| recent deaths = no

| ongoing = add

| ITNR = no

| altblurb =

| altblurb2 =

| sources =

| updated =

| nominator = Abo Yemen

| creator =

| updaters =

| nom cmt = This has been ongoing for a while now, and I've just noticed that it isn't in ITN

| sign = 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• 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)
• Oppose - Slow burner and directly caused by the Gaza War, which is already at ongoing. — ^EF⁵ 16:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• "Red Sea crisis" was on ITN as an ongoing item from Jan - Apr 2024, but was removed in April 2024 after this discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Aha. Well, the conflict is back, now just hours ago, with the May 2025 Israeli attacks on Yemen 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support targeting United States attacks in Yemen (March 2025–present). It's essentially undeclared war. Bremps... 17:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose It wasn’t a big deal in the first place and there’s a ceasefire now. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

: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)

• 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. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{ITN candidate

| article = Friedrich Merz

| image = 2025-02-23 Bundestagswahl – Wahlabend CDU by Sandro Halank–070.jpg

| blurb = Germany's Bundestag elects Friedrich Merz (pictured) as the Chancellor of Germany in the second vote, following a unprecedented failure to elect him in the first vote.

| sources = [https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/05/06/world/merz-germany-chancellor-parliament The New York Times], [https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/may/06/friedrich-merz-german-chancellor-europe-live-latest-news The Guardian], [https://www.dw.com/en/bundestag-elects-merz-as-german-chancellor-in-2nd-vote/live-72443927 DW news]

| altblurb = Friedrich Merz (pictured) is elected Chancellor of Germany and sworn in alongside his cabinet.

| altblurb2 = A coalition government led by newly-elected Chancellor Friedrich Merz (pictured) is formed in Germany.

| updated = yes

| ITNR = yes

| nom cmt = 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.

| nominator = Haers6120

| sign = Haers6120 (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• 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)
• 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)
• :Comment Former results of german chancellor elections were mentioned on Wiki-Main-page aswell as election results - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:In_the_news&oldid=1059347853 see Scholz in 2021] and Merkel in 2005. LennBr (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::It's not a rule if it was posted in the past (if it is, it should be added on the ITN/R list).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• :{{u|Kiril Simeonovski}}, under what DYK rules do you think this could be eligible? Schwede66 01:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:*:{{u|Schwede66}} Improve the article so that it gets promoted to a GA, and this could be posted to DYK. That's even better for Wikipedia as it encourages quality editing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Strong oppose per Kiril Simeonovski. Departure– (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::I removed the ITNR tag, because per WP:ITNR, it only applies to {{green|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 {{green|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)

:::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)

• 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)
• :@Awkward42] I added a third blurb (altblurb II), FYI. LennBr (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::The original blurb is still the only one to capture the most newsworthy aspect of this. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

: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)

:Oppose - election result was already posted. nableezy - 15:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::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 🧚‍♂am KING  22:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

:* This is not the same case as Trump because his inauguration was just a formality as there was no coalition required. The same case for this is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:In_the_news&oldid=1059347853 "A coalition government led by newly-elected Chancellor Olaf Scholz (pictured) is formed in Germany."] We posted Scholz and this is the same country and the same process. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:*: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)

::::This election seems more akin to the Speaker of the House election in the United States - typically a mere formality but in recent years a contested event. Unsure if this chancellor election/change meets ITN. Natg 19 (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support Alt II per ITNR. Article quality is adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :This is not ITNR. nableezy - 16:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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. --SpectralIon 17:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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 ({{tq|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)
• 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. Grimes2 17:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :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)

: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. Scuba 18:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• 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. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 19:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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/_{contributions} 20:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :"Normally this would not be posted"...people should really read, what other users have posted. the first comment mentions, that every election of a new german chancellor has been on wiki main page. 2003:E4:BF25:F900:909C:A2F5:BC2D:2F8B (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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 {{strike|state}} government. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :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)
• ::{{Ping|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)
• :::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)
• :Chancellor of Germany is the head of government, not of state. That would be the President. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 23:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• :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)
• Posted. Sandstein 12:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :{{smalldiv|1=@Sandstein A very minor heads-up: You forgot to itallicize the "pictured" for Menz and remove the "pictured" from Zhao Xintong. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}}
• ::Thanks for the reminder and to the person who fixed it. Sandstein 14:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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)

{{cot|Portal:Current events/2025 May 5}}

{{Portal:Current events/2025 May 5}}

{{cob}}

----

{{ITN candidate

| article = May Abrahamse

| recent deaths = yes

| sources = [https://www.netwerk24.com/netwerk24/kunste/may-abrahamse-1930-2025-20250506 netwerk24.com]

| updated = yes

| nominator = Gerda Arendt

| updaters = Gerda Arendt

| creator = Edlihsoor

| nom cmt = An operatic soprano in the South Africa under apartheid: difficult! The article was mostly there.

| sign = --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• Support No issues. Grimes2 14:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 04:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ITN candidate

| article = James Baker (musician)

| recent deaths = yes

| sources = [https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/james-baker-australian-drummer-dies-aged-71-1235963320/ Billboard], [https://au.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/james-baker-hoodoo-gurus-beasts-of-bourbon-dead-76395/ Rolling Stone Australia]

| updated = yes

| nominator = 240F:7A:6253:1:550D:65B1:47CA:2B88

| updaters = Ronnievonjohnson

| nom cmt =

| sign = 240F:7A:6253:1:550D:65B1:47CA:2B88 (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

:Oppose awards section uncited. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 23:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ITN candidate

| article = 2025 World Snooker Championship

| image = Zhao Xintong PHC 2016-1.jpg

| blurb = Zhao Xintong (pictured) defeats Mark Williams to win the World Snooker Championship.

| recent deaths = no

| ongoing = no

| ITNR = yes

| altblurb =

| altblurb2 =

| sources =

| updated = yes

| nominator = Lee Vilenski

| creator =

| updaters = HurricaneHiggins

| nom cmt =

| sign = Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• 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)
• :Its a crazy story really to not play for 20 months to playing like that. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Yes, the back story won't make it into the blurb, will it. Nor the heroic fightback from Williams in the final session. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::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)
• Support - "first champion from Asia" might make a useful blurb detail. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 22:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Why aren’t we using the image above? Kowal2701 (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::That was in 2016 when he was aged just 19? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Surprised we don’t have an image from the tournament, current one looks goofy Kowal2701 (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::: 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)
• :::::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)

:Use the 2016 image Current one seems like something he might put up on Facebook. Bremps... 01:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::That's when he was a teenager. Stephen 02:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• 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 {{u|HurricaneHiggins}} who seems to have been the lead author. Modest Genius ^talk 11:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Thank you, @Modest Genius! Much appreciated! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Higgins should get most of the credit here, really well written. I like to see these things posted and then say: well, you've got another 80 or so similar articles to read. Been steadily working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker/projects#world snooker championship for some time. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

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 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 tags are being used, here are their contents:

{{Reflist}}{{NOINDEX}}

{{Main Page topics|state=collapsed}}

Candidates

Category:Main Page discussions

Category:Current events