---

Nominator's comments: World Expo is ITNR per se. Article needs work. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment removed image from nom, as we don't post non-free images to the front page. Non-free images should only be used in article space, for the article to which it relates. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - For those who might say "but I don't see Expo on the ITN/R list" -- it's a world's fair. Not saying anyone will think that, but just in case.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've got a few nit picky concerns - proseline in the COVID section, the big empty table of participants - but the only blocker is that orange tagged section on IPM. If we can (legitimately) strike it, I'd be a support. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also suggest reviewing verb tenses since the Expo is now opened (seeing a lot of "will" and should now be "was"). --Masem (t) 13:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The previous Expo 2017 and Expo 2015 don't seem to have been posted at ITN and this one doesn't seem to be getting much news coverage. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel the need to remind you that this is ITN/R, per my comment immediately above your vote. If you want to dispute its ITN/R status, take it up on WT:ITN. WaltCip-(talk) 15:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  2015 was nominated but not posted as its quality was not improved in time for posting - this also triggered a review of the Expo at ITNR which obviously left it to be kept. 2017 was never nominated. So these can't be used as data points here. I am seeing news coverage, so that's sufficient for that factor, and only leaves the quality of the article issue. --Masem (t) 15:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As you know, this is ITNR so all that is of concern is the quality of the article, not the number of pageviews which appears to have become something of an irrelevant disruption lately. Just ongoing disruption, time after time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's the 2015 discussion mentioned by Masem above: Proposal: Remove World's Fairs. The rough consensus seems to have been in favour of the proposal (7 for removal to 3.5 against). Here's an example:

  Remove, World's Fairs were relevant when most of the world didn't know the rest of the world existed. No longer true. I honestly couldn't even tell you, in my lifetime, that I've seen any real coverage of "Expo" or its brethren.
  — User:The Rambling Man 20:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Andrew🐉(talk) 20:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Difference is I respect consensus here, rather than continually try to convert ITN to WP:TOP25. Whether or not I personally think the Expo should be at ITNR is immaterial. Imagine being emotionally mature enough to get over it and work with the community consensus instead of continuing to disrupt the process with tangential irrelevancies? Here's a suggestion: renominate it for removal from ITNR instead of this endless stream of TOP25 suggestions? That, at least, is a pragmatic approach for once. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And it was not removed. Period. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The orange-tagged section is tiny and doesn't seem in any way vital; I'd suggest removing it until it's sourced rather than letting it languish unsourced. Otherwise this seems fine, if unpolished. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom. comment orange-tagged section deleted. I agree with Grapple X that the section added nothing to the article and can be dispensed with. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no major issues or omissions from this ITNR. I've done a tiny tidy-up. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 04:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Now that this thing is open, I've been inspecting the grand spectacle. Here's some observations:

1. It's clear now why CNN is listed as the news source above. That's because "CNN will be the official broadcaster for Dubai Expo 2020." Note the future tense.
2. The page is dominated by a big table of country pavilions. These all have flags but otherwise seem to be mostly empty. Consider the topical country of Guinea for example. What is in its pavilion and how has this been affected by the recent coup? It doesn't say.
3. But there's prose too. Here's my favourite sentence: "Tickets are also free for people of determination, with 50% off being offered for one caretaker." But what does it mean?
4. I also checked out the opening ceremony on YouTube. This is two hours long but I haven't made it past the first 30 minutes, which consisted of slow drumming while guys in desert robes slowly tapped their walking sticks. Next up was a speech but I made an excuse and left. But the good news is that my online view means that I'm now an official visitor to this thing. Here's an explanation:

   Pre-pandemic, Expo organizers forecast 25 million visitors to the event over its six-month tenure. That number has not been adjusted for its new dates and circumstances, but organizers have since been referring to "25 million visits," which will include repeat visitors and people watching online. Expo's digital offering has become a cornerstone of the event, and Dubai reportedly wants these visitors to be included in its overall attendance numbers. The city is desperate for its visitation numbers to be a success...

Yes, you can smell the desperation.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is ITNR, meaning that it would be posted upon a adequate update. I don't actually disagree that there are not as important as they used to be, and I've supported removing it from the list in the past, but as long as it's on the list, it will be posted. 331dot (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: A high-profile case with international coverage which was actually in the WP:TOP25 for sustained heavy readership. The trial and verdict means that it's all over the news again and questions are being asked as it comes out that there were several red flags over previous years. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is exhausting. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For the same reasons as and per consensus in Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/September 2021#(Closed) RD: Gabby Petito and perhaps Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/September 2021#(Closed) Perm State University shooting were opposed. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose local news with no encyclopedic impact. This is not WP:TOP25. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose To further add to the above, this was not a situation that drew a major story as in the death of George Floyd and the subsequent sentencing. While I'm sure legally, justice has been served, this is yet another example of the media giving undue weight on a story due to MWWS. --Masem (t) 18:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Her disappearance, death, the police response to a vigil for her & the prosecution of her killer all gained a huge amount of media coverage in the UK. Unlike the reaction to the murder of George Floyd, there weren't any riots & because Wayne Couzens admitted the crimes he was charged for, there was no trial. Jim Michael (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Per TRM. Ain't gonna fly beyond the cliffs of Dover. – Sca (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note the international sources cited from all over the globe. The NYT, for example, leads on the angle that "The extent to which Ms. Everard’s attacker wielded his powers as a police officer in the horrific attack has prompted a wave of new calls for reform in the London police department." Andrew🐉(talk) 18:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopen This discussion was closed in just 26 minutes. But now, 3 days later, it's clear that the story has not gone away. I was just watching the influential Andrew Marr Show reviewing the Sunday papers, "Many of the papers are covering the Sarah Everard story – there’s lots of different version of that...this is obsessing the country and rightly so..." Here's some of the latest coverage:

1. Everard murder case sparks urgent inquiry into vetting of police officers
2. Sarah Everard’s killer Wayne Couzens was deployed to guard Parliament
3. Commons Speaker wants Met Police to explain Wayne Couzens' Parliament work
4. London Police, Under Fire on Everard Murder, Respond With Safety Tips ...provoked widespread criticism and mockery
5. How CCTV played a vital role in tracking Sarah Everard – and her killer
6. Sabina Nessa and Sarah Everard cases put treatment of women and safety back in the spotlight.
7. Sarah Everard: The 80 UK women 'killed by men' since her murder
8. Sarah Everard: Teachers call for misogyny lessons in ‘national strategy’ to stop sexist attitudes among boys
9. The 79 women killed in the UK since Sarah Everard’s murder
10. Sexual offences: when women report them, what happens?

Well, we see what happened to the report on ITN – it was perfunctorily dismissed in just 26 minutes. And that's by a 100% male straw poll, right? This is not a good look so can we give such discussions at least 24 hours, please. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson There is no arbitrary minimum discussion period, and attempts to establish one have not gained consensus. That said, I might have given this a little more time. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Covered by Le Figaro, Die Welt, El Pais, etc. etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Was there a trial? It seems to me the time to post this would have been when he was convicted. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, there was a trial – the evidence and verdict are the starting point for this item. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The legal proceedings are documented in the linked article. A guilty plea meant that a full trial was not required. Much of the evidence only came to light after the verdict and sentencing. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose again, dozens of people have whole-life sentences. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not many whole-life sentences prompt such a widespread discussion on women's safety, the integrity of the police force (including demands for Cressida Dick to resign) and the call for a public enquiry. Still going on in the UK Sunday broadsheets today. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I missed that in the blurb. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well at least you've owned up to it. Well done. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me. Which blurb? --PFHLai (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And please excuse me for my sarcasm. I assumed TRM was suggesting that a more descriptive blurb might have been more suitable. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for clarifying. The existing blurb is indeed inadequate. It needs more to convince readers that this is not just another "parochial" story. --PFHLai (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The most recent news, the sentencing of Couzens, was widely covered, but the nom. was rejected as essentially parochial, and it's now three days old. It may still be spawning follow-up coverage in the UK, but as far as I can ascertain not elsewhere. Today the topic is absent from the main pages of AP, BBC, BBC/Europe, Guardian, Reuters, and NYT. As a non-Brit I must tread lightly, but I'm not persuaded by the preceding comments that it's now somehow become of ITN-level import, and I'm leaning toward opposing once more. (Convince me otherwise.) – Sca (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – (The nomination was closed way too early) The case of a policeman turned rapist and killer while on duty is absolutely newsworthy for ITN. Apparently the people in the UK are still in shock. STSC (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  So? How does that leverage this nom. in? – Sca (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's quite significant in the UK, for various reasons, and will likely have sustained media coverage in the UK, but is probably of little interest to people outside the UK. Not sure how that converts to ITN-ness. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Any murder is a tragedy but this has no additional notability beyond routine crime coverage in the media. I'm opposed to posting individual murder-trial verdicts unless they truly have some additional notability beyond simply happening; the murder of George Floyd for example sparked worldwide protests for an extended period of time, and that's the bar for me. I think it's also worth noting that another young woman's murder is also making occasional appearances in the UK press, and we're not opening let alone re-opening a nomination for her here, I wonder what the difference is. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I wonder what the difference is. The Everard murder is of interest because it involved an abuse of power (the killer was a police officer who arrested Everard under false pretences), which was followed by nonsensical statements by officials representing the Metropolitan police, such as the Met Commissioner. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know; I've lived in Northern Ireland my whole life, this isn't the coverage most crimes by the police are given. The difference is something else and I would hope we aren't going to contribute to it further. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you cite to me a comparable case (that didn't receive comparable media attention) to an incumbent police officer falsely arresting someone who wasn't a "young, white, upper-middle-class women", then proceeding to rape and kill her, followed by police executives advising people to run from armed police officers into someone's home and then call 999, or familiarise themselves with their legal rights and refuse arrest if they deem the arrest (in their opinion) to be unlawful? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  While not identical, this article indicates that killing of women by serving or former police in the UK isn't as rare as we would like to think it is. As for the clumsy reaction of the Met etc, just incompetence, not ITN-worthy at all, if we posted everything incompetent this establishment did, we'd have ticker running. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, I'm not necessarily supporting this ITN, just saying the "it's only ITN because young, white, upper-middle-class woman" doesn't seem valid. None of the cases on that Guardian link are comparable, as none were serving police officers who used police powers to kill someone. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course they're not directly comparable, but the point here is that a trusted individual abused that trust and killed someone. That's happened a lot, not in identical circumstances to this, but it doesn't raise it above the ITN bar. And if the actual story here is the fall-out, that's not covered in the blurb and as I noted, if we're going for the "incompetence" or "systemic issues" angle, that could be applied to most of the establishment mostly everywhere around the globe. However tragic it might be, it's not ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think things in No'rn Ir'n may be (still) a bit different to the rest of the UK. But I take your point. Alas, not just missing any more. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – "Arguments about a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful. Almost all news is of greater interest to a particular place and/or group of people than to the world at large, and arguing that something should or should not be posted, solely because of where the event happened, or who might be "interested" in it because of its location, are not usually met with concurrence from the community" per WP:ITNCRIT. – STSC (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Per WP:UNDUE. Lacks countervailing significance. – Sca (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: The woodpecker page has been updated by an IP but the list may need some work. The picture is by Audubon and is an FP. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Is there some notable aspect of this? (i.e. a record number, a single cause, something) Species go extinct around the world not infrequently. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unfortunately, animals are too often declared extinct, and not only by the U.S. government, but especially by the IUCN, which has more scientific authority in this matter. Inform me well, but I don't know to what extent linking a list is acceptable in an ITND nomination. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Alsoriano97 is mistaken. AA explains that "It is rare for the US Fish and Wildlife Service to declare a species extinct ... Since the Endangered Species Act was signed into US law in the 1960s, only 11 species have been declared officially "extinct" ... Wednesday's declaration would mark the highest number of species ever declared extinct at one time." Andrew🐉(talk) 20:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm wondering why the US government should be singled out here. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, these animals lived in the US. 75.34.30.200 (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, are the Americans declaring the Cuban sub-species to be extinct as well then? That's their call is it? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Does the Cuban sub-species fall under the scope of this announcement? I'm honestly not sure. In any case, there hasn't been strong evidence for the Cuban subspecies for several decades. 75.34.30.200 (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• But the blurb is telling us the "US" is "declaring" the entire species extinct. There are two sub-species, the American and the Cuban. To which of these subspecies does this "declaration" apply? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And what is their average airspeed when unladened?? --Masem (t) 21:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Since the declaration relates to the US Endangered Species Act, I assume that the Cuban subspecies is not under the scope. Tell you what: if you fly down to Cuba and actually find an ivory-billed woodpecker, I owe you a Coke. 75.34.30.200 (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh wow, so even that part of the blurb is incorrect? Is that five fails? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The Cuban subspecies' lede says generally believed to be extinct. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I can read. But this blurb is saying that the US have declared the entire species (i.e. both subspecies, by implication), extinct. Is that reflected in our encyclopedia? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• So replace ivory-billed woodpecker with campephilus principalis principalis? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And replace "declares" with "proposes" and point at the correct target article and include in that article some prose and a suitable update, and then you might have something to nominate. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the correct article? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The one that describes the 23 species being "proposed" (not declared) as extinct. Which one is that do you think? The woodpecker one? Or another one? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• But you're not telling me I'm wrong. I'm just saying that in the case that the declaration of an extinct species has to be blurb-worthy, we should look at the updating of the IUCN lists (which I believe is annual, so it's not exceptional either). I don't deny that the US government does it. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The instructions above urge that we "Please do not...oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country...". Andrew🐉(talk) 21:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not the fact that it's the United States government that I'm concerned with, but the fact that we are singling out a single government. There's also systemic bias to consider. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• So, we get rid of IUCN, what is it for if we already have the United States? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've often wondered why the instructions say not to oppose because the event related to a single country, when people routinely do oppose for just that reason, and there are many cases in which it's sensible and valid. This is one of them, as we don't want to have to make individual posts for every country's individual lists of extinct species. We rely on a global authority which sums up all the matters of interest for us, not just those in one jurisdiction.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That part of the "please do not" above means that nominations should not be opposed because, say, they deal with the United States only, or the UK only. It's fine to oppose something because it is a local story, irrespective of the country involved. My comments above are based on that, not the fact that this deals with the US. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's so rare to see any science articles in ITN. The ivory-billed woodpecker is an iconic bird species, and its status has been the subject of speculation for decades. This is interesting and newsworthy, regardless of the IUCN's position. 75.34.30.200 (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the "list" article contains practically no prose at all and should be the genuine target of this "news" item. The woodpecker article says the IUCN considers the species to be critically endangered, not extinct, so this appears to be something of a non-event really. Why is a local organisations's decision-making superseding that of the international body we normally use to determine such statuses? And finally, I don't see the details in the blurb mentioned or referenced in either target article. Triple fail. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually quadruple fail. "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to remove 23 species from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) due to extinction" so this is just a proposal. I suppose that's what you get when going for "popular" news stories on the BBC homepage. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  AP explains that "The announcement kicks off a three-month comment period before the species status changes become final.". I suppose that, as this is rarely done, the announcement has triggered widespread coverage. We should report this now so that readers will keep their eyes open for woodpeckers and the like. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, the quote I made came direct from the US Fish & Wildlife Service so I assume they know the difference between what this blurb says and what they have actually "proposed". So the blurb is incorrect, the target article is incorrect, the target article contains no mention of the detail of the blurb, incorrect or otherwise, and the real target article has no prose. So my vote stands. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Woodpecker Spotlight as specist, otherwise Refrain. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm pretty sure the IUCN is the international organization that specializes in these issues. Banedon (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose topic altogether; the ivory-billed woodpecker has been presumed extinct since the 1940s, and this is the IUCN's job.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The bird I would rather spotlight above ten others (if I did play favourites) has been dead to even kooks for 33 years and to mainstream spotters since the 1960s, just saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• IUCN Some say that this is the IUCN's job. It seems that the IUCN reports three times a year and so we're all over that then, right? No, the most recent report was at the start of this month and nobody even noticed. Look at recent years of ITN for coverage of this sort:

• Bramble_Cay_melomys – no consensus
• Biodiversity_loss – no consensus
• Przewalski's_horse – no consensus
• Vaquita – pulled

So, it seems that, whatever the organisation, the usual suspects will always find something to quibble about and so nothing is ever done. It's like Greta says, "Blah blah blah".

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "usual suspects" have every right to weigh in as you do. If you build a consensus without the "usual suspects", then you do. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well given the blurb is wrong, the target is wrong, the real target article is very low quality, there's little wonder this is being "quibbled" about. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the IUCN, not the US government, is the proper authority on this. This isn't American Wikipedia, so we don't need to post every time the US Government says something. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose US always put their nose in things that are not their business. I agree that it's IUCN's job to declare species extinct, and any other report should be taken with a pinch of salt.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the power vested in me as a Wikipedian, I hereby declare this nomination extinct. – Sca (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can quibble with the exact wording of the blurb, but a government decision arguably has more real-world implications than the IUCN status, in regards to endangered species protections. 2600:1008:B04F:C0CD:2D23:D1DB:415D:EF09 (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, the US Government declaring something to be true has impact only in the US, if any. A world organisation that is actually the expert declaring it would be a lot more important and world-impacting. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But individual governments can enact policies to actually DO something about endangered species. The fact that the US is basically giving up on these species is notable in itself. We can never prove that something really is extinct, but it’s worthwhile to know what governments plan to do about those species. 2600:1008:B04F:C0CD:2D23:D1DB:415D:EF09 (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It's also a RD for Woody Woodpecker. Count Iblis (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• He's an acorn woodpecker, which aren't extinct. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I always assumed he was pileated. – Sca (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wash my hands of this conversation. WaltCip-(talk) 16:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Extinctions just aren't going to make it to ITN.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly high-profile species where it would be worth posting, such as the black rhino, mountain gorilla and Hawaiian crow. The Yangtze River dolphin is probably extinct but hasn't been declared yet; that would surely be a blurb. We posted Lonesome George (Pinta Island tortoise). Modest Genius ^talk 17:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The woodpecker hasn't been seen since 1944, so is pretty old news. The authority on these matters is IUCN, so we shouldn't even consider a blurb unless they've declared a species extinct. Then it comes down to which species, how many etc. In this particular case I don't think any of them are worth a blurb on its own, and 23 is sadly not an especially large number. I recommend starting a new nomination the next time IUCN updates the red list, as conservation is certainly under-represented in ITN. Modest Genius ^talk 17:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Modest Genius.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment are we done with this error-strewn nomination? I know WP:TOP25 hasn't been updated this week, but that's really no excuse for this continued obsession with nominating whatever the BBC News "most read" articles suggest, particularly when there's literally no fact-checking going on. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: A shocking result that incited a wave of reactions in the football world. --Stop racism immediately (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose we don't post single game/match results of any kind. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Although this is an incredible match and certainly deserves its own article, individual matches aren't exactly news-caliber and while the football world may be devouring this information I don't know if anybody else really is. Jihaslun (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose match is good for three points out of 18 in a group stage. Come back when Sheriff win the whole thing. User has made three edits, all of which on ITN and the last two were overwhelmingly opposed, starting with one stating that arrests of five people could conclude racism in football [2]. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:85DE:3D8E:740E:4972 (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: This guy knows how to get into ITN. If basketball and boxing won't do it, then politics will! Andrew🐉(talk) 09:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. If he's elected as president, we can post him then!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. He is not the greatest boxer in the last 250 years, or even just this year. If he wins the presidency, that will be posted. As I understand it, he has competition from Duterte's daughter. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's also already a sitting senator, he had time for that and boxing. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The news reports indicate that some rate him as better than Muhammad Ali and they all use terms like "icon" and "legend". And boxing is a much bigger sport than sumo with about 20,000 professionals whereas sumo only has about 120. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Please do not use Wikipedia's MainPage to promote awareness of his candidacy in the upcoming election. --PFHLai (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:Tendulkar and WP:Ferguson not posting this as well would be systemic bias. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pacquiao is not in the same universe as those two. He is not the greatest boxer ever, or even this year. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And both of these were done in 2013 when the standards for inclusion where very different. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources agree No doubt about Pacquiao’s greatness. I'd never heard of the other two, nor Pacman, so I go with what WP:RS tell me. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I'm sure this will draw baseless comparisons with Hakuho's nomination below but Pacquiao is simply a very good boxer, and there are any number of those; should we post Pacquiao we'd set precedence for a much, much broader field. If he wins this election, then sure, let's go with that. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 09:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose if he wins the election, then post about it then. But he's not even the biggest boxer of his era, and not anywhere near as famous as Tendulkar or Ferguson (both of whom I would have had questions about posting anyway). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is apparently now long-standing consensus that we do not post sports retirements of any kind, period. WaltCip-(talk) 12:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: These issues are dominating the UK news and I've cited the NYT to demonstrate international coverage. The natural gas and HGV shortages seem to affect other countries too so perhaps there's scope for wider coverage. Don't panic! Andrew🐉(talk) 10:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Neither article is in the greatest shape. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think the panic buying is notable (nearly every forecourt in the country running out of fuel within hours of each delivery, massive queues every day and widespread issues caused by a lack of available fuel) but the article isn't in a good state at all, especially for how many sources can be found right now. I'm not too sure the natural gas shortage has received coverage on the same level, internationally or domestically. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once the article is improved. This is a very good example of an event with major immediate repercussions. The whole country is in a chaotic situation, with the army put on standby to help ease the crisis, and the rising oil prices have already affected other countries as well. And, last but not least, this is clearly top news at the moment far beyond the UK.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "whole country is in a chaotic situation"? Whatever do you mean!? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support pending cleanup. Top of my news feed this morning. It seems the Brexit boom has .... run out of gas? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No names, no pack drill. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Also we posted then pulled a major fuel disruption and panic buying in the Southeastern United States an area larger and more populated than all of the UK but that's only because we can't post thing from the USA so no reason to compare. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sorry for the non-Brexiteers. I don't know where you see the remarkable international coverage, but certainly beyond the British news there is little explanation. I fear that if it had happened in another country, such as Lebanon, it would have less impact, however much the same or similar in severity. And about the buying panic....nothing important considering what we have seen during the whole pandemic. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose neither article in a suitable condition, moreover, the situation as far as the petrol/diesel supply is concerned appears to be stabilising now the morons have full fuel tanks. Yesterday's news, and here, reported very badly. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Double oppose. Filled up this morning, no problemo. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I might have to head to your neck of the woods. Our local petrol station is still flip-flopping between having no fuel and having absurd queues, which block the entire road even for those not panic-buying. I still have enough fuel for now, though, so like this whole story it's not really a huge deal.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OR. You probably have a pass for being a "key Wikipedia worker." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. Storm in a jerrycan. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assume you mean an Einheitskanister. – Sca (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Having walked past several empty forecourts on the way to the office, it doesn't even seem to affecting parts of the UK outside of Britain, I can't imagine a localised panic being a real news concern. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per TRM. Won't have any lasting impact, it's a flash-in-the-pan story generated by media-fuelled panic buying, that's already settling down. And that notwithstanding the BBC News sending their reporter Phil McCann to cover the story.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Mate, this is like a Tuesday morning in Florida during the hurricane season.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Short term market panic. May be signs of something more but it would be that something more that we'd post, not irrational consumer panic. --Masem (t) 13:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on notability, oppose on quality since this is getting worldwide news coverage, and since this is related to a topic that was previously covered in depth in ITN (Brexit). NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Did we post the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack to ITN? Might be useful precedent to refer to. Mlb96 (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would seem that it was posted mistakenly, pulled, and then failed to gain consensus to repost. In that case, I also oppose posting this one for lack of significance. Mlb96 (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ... any move to repost. Limited market machinations without general significance. – Sca (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, supply chain disruptions are occurring globally, so singling out one instance is problematic. Abductive (reasoning) 01:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: The coverage indicates that there was a record crowd for this and Usyk's readership is now even greater than Lewis Hamilton's. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose just one weight category, nothing remarkable about the fight that makes it rise above the normal regular boxing matches which are essentially a massive money-making exercise for a couple of people. And this isn't WP:TOP25. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per TRM, this isn't ITN/R and if we posted every weight category title fight we'd be inundated with stories. And what on earth has it got to do with Lewis Hamilton? Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Not ITNR" is not a reason to not post an ITNC nomination. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I know that (I've been here long enough), I was simply pointing out that there was no special treatment for the heavyweight category. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Lewis Hamilton thing is the persistent objective to translate ITN into WP:TOP25. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not heard of Usyk before so that was just some context. Usyk was actually just the #3 article yesterday – the top two were Squid Game and UFC 266. The latter seems to be the fight of most interest to our readers but it didn't get much love from mainstream media whereas Joshua vs Usyk was covered by the likes of the NYT, as noted above. And, of course, all of these stories are utterly crushing our bottom blurbs which are stale stuff from over a week ago and which just about nobody is reading. That's the real issue here – that ITN wants to be the BOTTOM25. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing figures are not a factor, have not been a factor, will not be a factor, &c &c 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the pursuit of pageviews is not one of ITN's goals. That is left for WP:TOP25, which operates just like a tabloid newspaper, instead of an encyclopedia. And it's a little pot/kettle when there is opposition to the Ryder Cup article (which logged nearly 1/4 million pageviews over the weekend) because the article doesn't cover Brexit. Clearly disruptive. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. We have posted high profile boxing matches before, and heavyweight is the class that most people pay attention to, but I don't think this fight rises to the profile level needed. As part of the role of ITN is to draw attention to articles, and motivate their improvement, readership should not be a main factor in determining what gets posted. If any user feels that ITN should just be an automated ticker of the most read articles, they may propose that- though I'm not sure why we would want more people to read articles that people are already reading without our help. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment FWIW, Anthony Joshua's fights seem to rarely have any promotion here in the United States despite the fact he's a unified heavyweight champ. It seems as if British media (such as Talksport, which can be heard in the U.S. through various streaming options) will talk up the fight before it happens, with U.S. media (such as ESPN) only issuing an news alert after the fight has concluded. I don't know why the heavyweight bouts have lost luster here, but it is evident they have (irrespective of how heavyweight boxing is still perceived in the rest of the world). rawmustard (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. If there was some manner of record here—an unheard-of title unification or the like—I'd consider it but as nothing out of the ordinary has happened here this is really no different to any other title fight, and I say this as a combat sports fan. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joshua held titles of the three (of the four) major sanctioning bodies and lost it to Usyk. (Yes, I know, if there's a unification fight between Usyk and Fury (the holder of the other major title, and the lineal champion) mainstays here will still oppose lol.) Howard the Duck (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which would mean that Usyk has not won anything that has not already been won before—when I say "unheard of", I meant along the lines of Conor McGregor's first champ-champ accomplishment, or even Amanda Nunes being the first to defend two concurrent titles, not merely the changing of hands of a collection of belts that have already been nominally unified long before. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's true, hence mainstays here, and even some who are not, will oppose no matter what unless some white British guy is involved. It was very hard to get in Oscar De La Hoya vs. Manny Pacquiao to be posted here, and indeed, it wasn't. Good thing Pacman's next fight was against a white British dude, while was not as big in the news as the De La Hoya fight, was still posted (LOL). No worries, ITN is diverse since we have Gaelic football! Howard the Duck (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not entirely sure what race or nationality has to do with my position here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed, race or nationality plays no part in my consideration of nominations. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Given the structure of boxing without any regular championship/playoff structure, such that these title fights can happen at any time, there has to be something significant beyond just title-winning to be an ITN item, and from discussion above, this present fight just seems to be shuffling of the current titles among the top fighters out there. --Masem (t) 14:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above, boxing has many championship fights, often multiple per year. If/when someone fights the belt unification fight with Fury, that match may be ITN-worthy (especially if all the belts are unified). But the importance of this particular match is not significant enough for ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would only consider a reunification of all the belts to be noteworthy.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Bucking the trend here, but surely the heavyweight title is the "big one" when it comes to boxing, the category where anyone can enter and the best person wins irrespective of weight. And, although it's not something I watch myself, this is clearly an event and a sport which attract large interest - Sky Sports charged viewers a one-off £25 to watch it, which gives an indication how much the public wanted to see it. Plus I've been at pubs before when a boxing event is on and they are rammed. As such, I don't think this has less importance than the FA Cup / Superbowl / AFL Grand Final / Wimbledon / take your pick - it's the blue riband event of this sport. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure the "heavyweight" category is the blue riband for boxing, not any more. It's certainly one of the biggest money-making events in the sport at the moment, but as noted above, it's barely made a scratch in the US (and I think it's obvious why that is right now!), it's not like the golden era with Tyson, Holyfield, Foreman etc. This is very much about the money and I suspect most of the organisers were disappointed they couldn't contrive a draw so they could do another multi-million dollar show. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Just earlier you were arguing that ITN would suffer from stagnation if we did not have a diverse selection of topics, regardless of viewership and regardless of hits. I don't understand why you are singling out boxing for reasons that could easily be applied to a variety of other sports that are ITN/R. WaltCip-(talk) 15:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I was certainly referring to a niche sport that we represent annually. If we were to selectively post this "heavyweight" championship bout, then there'd be little reason to not post all subsequent title bouts, and that's patently absurd. I don't think a routine boxing match should get ITN. I don't think a routine football match should get ITN. I don't think a routine rugby match should get ITN. Stagnation is definitely something we should be working harder to avoid, but just unleashing tabloid journalism (aka WP:TOP25) at ITN would spell the end of it. That may not be such a bad thing, but would need consensus. As it stands, this particular match is of no real encyclopedic value at all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no doubt that heavyweight boxing has lost a great deal of its popularity and viewership since the Tyson v Holyfield days (at least in the US, its prime market). To suggest it's still on a par with Wimbledon in terms of prestige is misleading in my opinion. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with that comparison is that those things take place once a year - ad only once. With five separate belts for each weight there theoretically could be a dozen title fights a year in that weight (for example, there are currently at least three weights that have four different title holders). Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Sumo has a recorded history since 1750s and Hakuho is regarded GOAT in these 250 years. Unlike in other sports, this retirement is not "reversible". Since Reuters has picked it up it is pretty much certain. Not sure when it's best to post this: now, when there is an official announcement, or when he gets his official retirement ceremony (yes sumo has this). 2A02:2F0E:D707:7C00:996D:12AD:F617:108E (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The promotion of wrestlers to yokozuna rank is an ITN/R item, and Hakuhō Shō's promotion was listed in 2015. I would be opposed to a blanket addition of yokozuna retirement to this practice, I think the merits of this item depend on whether Hakuhō Shō is a sufficiently exceptional sportsperson. --LukeSurl ^t c 08:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction, he became yokozuna in 2007. The ITN item in 2015 was Sumo wrestler Hakuhō Shō wins a record-breaking 33rd makuuchi championship. --LukeSurl ^t c 14:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It should be rare for us to post sports retirements, but I think this rises to that level, given this man's career and status. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I don't know what the precedence is for posting retirements, and if this would be the first or at least one of the first then I'm not sure we should start, but Hakuhō is as accomplished in his field as any sporting name is ever likely to be. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I think this would set a precedent for retirement of GOATs that wouldn't be desirable. Like an old person dying, retirements are inevitable and pivotal figures such as Roger Federer, Tom Brady, Lionel Messi, Serena Willams, Lewis Hamilton etc are all likely to retire some time fairly soon, but I wouldn't advocate posting any of them, however notable their achievements.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those sports have a recorded history of 250 years. 2A02:2F0E:D707:7C00:280C:B852:E0EB:46C8 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We posted the retirements of Sachin Tendulkar(here) and Alex Ferguson(here). 331dot (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on merit but the article still need some updating. He's not just record holders on success, the others aren't even close. -- KTC (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I agree with the other supporters, he seems like an important person in his sport. Sahaib3005 (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The subject hasn't actually retired; there is just a report that he's planning to, due to injury. This might change if his condition or mood improves or it could just be a manoeuvre as he tries to establish a stable. High profile stars routinely go through this sort of will-he / won't-he and comebacks are quite common too. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Typically with this sort of thing it is the announcement that gets the most attention, not the formal handing in of paperwork or a retirement ceremony. The reports don't indicate that he's just thinking about it, but that he decided to. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The Reuters' report cites NTV which just attributes anonymous "sources". Neither the subject nor the Sumo Association seems to have made a formal statement. This is just gossip and rumour. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The JT article says "Yokozuna Hakuho, the most decorated wrestler in sumo history, has decided to call time on his storied career, according to multiple media outlets.". That's pretty definitive, and as with elections, we report what the media reports. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As an ozeki with the record he holds, there will be the traditional retirement ceremony, this isn't something that's taken lightly or from which there is a comeback. If we want to wait then the ceremony would be a definitive "he has retired" point but also even just the announcement that one will happen should be definitive. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And in most cases like this, it is the announcement that gets the most attention, not the formal ceremony or handing in of paperwork. If we waited for that, the argument would then be "not in the news" 331dot (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The retirement ceremony will not happen for about another year, no sense in waiting that long. The Japanese press has reported that his retirement paperwork has been handed in [3] so no going back on it now. I agree that should be posted at the time of the announcement anyway.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That source doesn't seem to say anything about handing in paperwork and it's not a statement by the subject. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's the first sentence. It will formally be announced on Wednesday.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) I have no issue with posting now; my point is more that the formal nature of sumo means that isn't likely be backpedalled upon like, say, Michael Jordan or George Foreman retiring. Once it's announced it's a fait accompli as far as we're concerned given the ceremonies involved. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Just because he is the GOAT in sumo does not mean we should post his retirement, given that his article does not show how he is relevant beyond the rather niche boundaries of sumo. Chaosquo (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaosquo What should he be relevant in other than his field to merit posting? 331dot (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because sumo is a niche sport in my opinion, he has to have something other just being a GOAT in sumo for me to justify posting him to the front page. Chaosquo (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but every sport is a "niche sport". Very little would be posted if it had to be broadly relevant to global society. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it any more niche than American football or the All-Ireland championship (neither of which I would want to see ignored)? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're both deliberately misunderstanding me. Niche is mostly defined by viewership. For me, posting a retirement of a athlete should be held to the same standard as a death of a person, and Hakuhō does not meet that bar. Also, all four currently posted items are broadly relevant to global society, either by their own merits or because it was agreed to on ITN/R.

Chaosquo I didn't misunderstand anything. Every sport is only relevant to those that watch it or follow it. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sumo is the sport with the longest recorded history where complete lists of champions exists since the 1700s. And cricket is a fairly similarly niche sport yet it gets regularly featured on ITN and got a GOAT nod recently, and doesn't have a recorded history of 250 years. 2A02:2F0E:D707:7C00:280C:B852:E0EB:46C8 (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket is the biggest spectator sport in the world after (association) football, but do feel free to carry on posting nonsense... Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table tennis also has a giant amount of spectators, but mostly in China. Just because cricket is played in UK and some of its ex-colonies that are populous like India and Pakistan, doesn't make it not a niche sport outside those borders. Pretty much the entire Japan watches sumo the way the entire India watches cricket, difference being 10x population size. And variations of sumo are practiced in nearby countriues like South Korea and Mongolia, same way nearby Pakistan also follows cricket. The difference is that sumo is so ancient it didn't have an international organization to impose standards like the British Empire did throughout its colonies. 2A02:2F0E:D707:7C00:280C:B852:E0EB:46C8 (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose even with the stance that the retirement is irreversible, we simply just don't post sports retirements. We don't post things like CEO retirements or other influential outside of world leaders (which do involve changing of leadership by necessity). --Masem (t) 13:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  we simply just don't post sports retirements—As pointed out above, we have posted sports retirements before, at least twice. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  And I agree posting retirements should be rare; Peyton Manning's retirement was nominated but not posted(correctly) but I think Tom Brady's would merit it(though according to him that won't be for awhile yet). It's usually sports retirements that get the most attention, but others might. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec)Support A comparison to a CEO retirement is a little odd, they don't have the iconic status that the greatest sportspeople achieve. His status in sumo is similar to Sachin Tendulkar in cricket which we did post. No question that he is the greatest sumo wrestler of all time and this is being widely reported.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree CEO's can lack "iconic" status, with people like Bill Gates, Lee Iacocca, John D. Rockefeller etc. but as with anyone in sports, those who are "iconic" will be few and far between. --Masem (t) 13:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, the Tendulkar and Ferguson postings were a long time ago. Things have changed since then, and I find it unlikely we'd post those now.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, everything else ignored, cricket is the second most popular sport worldwide. Sumo? Not quite. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure covering only popular topics as we see them is a road we want to go down. Sumo is popular in Japan. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Subjective editor opinion about significance is something, but what is even more telling is that this does not appear to be so significant of a major sportsman retiring that it actually made world-wide front page news (no mention on Guardian; BBC; NYT, so on so forth). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  BBC covered it as a news item rather than sports item, for some reason, I don't know if that speaks to greater prominence in their view or lesser however. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Must be pretty awkward to be missing a BBC article from 6 hours ago yet still reason an oppose with that. 2A02:2F0E:D707:7C00:280C:B852:E0EB:46C8 (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The NYT have the story now [4].-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I cannot remember when sumo news ever made it to the front headlines in anglophone news. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle, oppose on quality would we post the retirement of Messi? Jordan or Gretzky had we been around then? Sumo's a big enough sport that some sumo things are ITN/R, and this guy is regarded as the greatest sumo of all time. And as mentioned above, this is actually a global headline on the BBC right now. However, his article needs some improvement before it makes it to the front page. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely we would have posted Jordan's retirements - both his first and second one. Jordan was an example of an athlete that had incredible international recognition. The first was especially notable because he was retiring in his prime and he went from there to another major league sport. I'm not so sure about Gretzsky. I'm positive that a Messi nom will make it to ITN without being SNOWed out of the room when he retires. WaltCip-(talk) 16:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose I don't think that announcements of retirement made by famous sportspeople should be posted because there are many cases in which people have come out of retirement. Michael Jordan, Michael Phelps, Michael Schumacher and Stephen Hendry are all household names in their respective sports who have returned to competition after announcing retirement.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kiril Simeonovski It's been noted above that there is no coming back from retiring from sumo. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that so I revoke my vote. However, I won't support this announcement of retirement.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose posting the retirement of any sportsperson. Jim Michael (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As mentioned above, we have previously posted retirements of "greatest" sportspeople where there was little or no chance of them returning. This certainly falls into this category and the fact that the sport is not one that is popular in the Anglosphere should not prevent that, per WP:CSB. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the most successful person in a quarter of a millennium in his sport? Of course. And comparisons to retiring CEOs are patently absurd (like retire from British Gas, get a job at Astra-Zeneca, retire from Astra-Zeneca, get a job at Accenture.... give me strength). The household name/not widely reported issue is also absurd, this is clearly a niche sport and reported upon by only those news sources who have a clear, eclectic role. And as for blanket "oppose any sportsperson retiring", well, that's taken the biscuit. Job done here, an absolute legend. If he died at any point hereafter, he'd be blurbed. His retirement is easily worth a blurb. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You must be aware that the vast majority of people haven't heard of him, so it's difficult to make a case that his retirement is important news to anyone other than those who follow sumo. Do you want the retirements of other sportspeople to be posted? Which ones which we didn't post do you think we should have? If you want the retirement of a person in what you admit is a niche sport to be posted, I take it that you want retirements of sportspeople in more popular sports to be posted as well. If Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer & Rafael Nadal were all to retire next year, would you want all their retirements to be posted? Jim Michael (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• To address your comparison; if either Nadal, Federer or Djokovic were demonstrably the most successful player in the history of tennis, number one in the rankings for a 250+ year record span, had won the most grand slams and matches and held a grand-slam winning streak twice as long as the second-place record, &c &c, and retired in a fashion which made it impossible to return to the sport, I think a lot of us would support them. I make no exaggeration when I say it would take going back to Max Woosnam for a comparably-accomplished sportsman. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Every sport is a "niche sport". That's just another way of pointing out systemic bias. This man is literally the #1 participant of this sport over its entire 250 year documented history. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes his retirement of great interest to other people who are in the same sport & those who follow it (who will already be aware of his retirement), but of no interest to the vast majority of readers. Jim Michael (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The stated purpose of ITN is written as follows:

• To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.
• To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events.
• To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.
• To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource.

It isn't just about what readers might be interested in, if it were, we would be nothing but a tabloid talking about Kim Kardashian's latest hairstyle or how Mitch McConnell got a COVID booster yesterday. ITN is not a popularity contest. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't post trivia.

Would any mainstream media source that's not a tabloid or a sports site/publication put the retirement of a sportsperson on its front page? Jim Michael (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has Kim Kardashian actually been relevant in the news cycle for the past four years? WaltCip-(talk) 13:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most sports do not have a 250 year documented history at all, never mind a literal #1 person in that entire history in the sport at this moment. I encourage people to set aside systemic bias here. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this were about some actual achievement that's in the news now, a title win or the setting of a record, I might consider it. But the dude retiring is entirely predictable, and not particularly interesting - a fact compounded by the simple fact that Sumo is not widely followed in the English-speaking world. Yet meanwhile, the main prize in the boxing world has changed hands for the first time in two years and it's apparently a snow oppose. It seems that what "countering systemic bias" actually means is sidelining topics that are encyclopedic and of actual interest to our readers, while instead promoting mundane stories about 36-year-old sportsmen retiring. The guy is of interest, but his retirement isn't.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet meanwhile, the main prize in the boxing world has changed hands for the first time in two years and it's apparently a snow oppose I don't think these are comparable. One is a sporting event of a nature that would always be opposed here—sporting events outside of the remit of a grand final or the culmination of a season are routinely opposed, especially when "the main prize" is really something like four of a possible half a dozen competing prizes. Opposing the post of a boxing match would be the equivalent of opposing the posting of a single honbasho result, and even those seeking to broaden the scope of what we post would likely and rightly oppose one of those. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) ITN is not a popularity contest. Does the boxing match involve the #1 person in the entire documented history of boxing? "A fact compounded by the simple fact that Sumo is not widely followed in the English-speaking world" is just systemic bias at work. We post on this page "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." That sumo is not a top sport in English-speaking countries should not be a reason to deny posting this. It's like people are afraid to read about something new and interesting to the sporting world in general. I apologize for leaning into this too hard, and I probably shouldn't say anymore, but looking at this opposition is frustrating given the mission here. That's on me, no one else. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Per Michael. Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support only because we cannot post the retirement of sports figures in English-speaking countries, and then refuse to accept those as precedent when considering non-Anglophones. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Righting a great wrong, are you? – Sca (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's that we should not put the retirement of any sportperson in any case. Neither Messi, nor Rafa Nadal, nor LeBron James, Anglo-Saxon or not. As if they were monarchs or the Pope.... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, and the cited cases (Ferguson and Tendulkar) date to eight years ago, when our criteria for posting were very different, so can't be held as a precedent here. The general consensus from the past few years is that no sports retirements should be posted.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is the end of an era. Glad that Wikipedia is here to help enlighten people who don't know much about the world beyond the anglosphere. --PFHLai (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose respectfully. Per longstanding community consensus and ITNC precedent, we do not post sports related retirements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem As I note above, we have posted retirements; one very much like this one(the literal greatest ever in his sport) 331dot (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conceding the odd exception has made it through, none that I am aware of seemed justified. Nor does this. If this were a death blurb under discussion I might be persuadable. But I really think we need to hold the line on sports retirements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What longstanding community consensus are you talking about? This nomination alone is split 50/50. That doesn't sound like longstanding consensus to me. Remember that consensus can also change. WaltCip-(talk) 00:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, consensus can change. And I am opposed to any change in this case. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the point here is that you cited a "longstanding community consensus" against, and unless that's documented somewhere, would seem to not be the case given that at least two cases have gotten through(again, including one very similar to this one). 331dot (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point about long-standing consensus is that it doesn't get overridden by localised issues, particularly when everyone is all buzzing because their favourite star has retired. Posting this would set precedent for a whole slew of sports stars to be posted in the next few years, and we really don't want that. For the umpteenth time, while there's no doubt that this guy did great things in his career, it's those things that are notable, not his retirement. And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news ticker.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have said that this should be rare, but we are talking about the best athlete in this sport in the last 250 years not some random sports star; many sports don't have that long a documented history. Tendulkar was also the greatest ever in his sport(and posted). I'm sorry, but I can't fathom the reluctance here and I think that some systemic bias is at work. And I've already said too much. Very disappointed and frustrated here(which is on me and me alone, no one else). I'm contemplating an ITN vacation to let that die down some, not sure yet. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pageviews his page has NEVER been more popular although he HAS been featured before on ITN. Yet the traffic he got even without being on the main page. All opposes are cause we dont post retirement but didn't have a problem with previous posted retirements. And half of them I recognize talking all about diversity but when it comes to actual diversity they seem to oppose "cause too niche". 2A02:2F0E:D707:7C00:58AE:2253:7389:9189 (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you please stop misrepresenting people like this. I don't support any sports retirement, period. We posted Hakuho when he broke the record because that was an achievement, and rightly so. But his retirement isn't notable. This isn't anything to do with diversity, and it's an underhand tactic to try to discount people's !votes in this manner, on an incorrect charge of being non-diverse.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]