Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2022

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form; any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

(Posted) RD: Jeremiah Green

 * Support Everything is cited now. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks updated. Skynxnex (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD/Blurb: Pope Benedict XVI

 * Blurb ec'd me on the nom, haven't checked the article yet. Kingsif (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * okay, Wait Not really tagged, but significant referencing work needs doing. Kingsif (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support blurb This one is obvious. Davey2116 (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb for obvious reason.  HurricaneEdgar    09:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, clearly. Nsk92 (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb but not yet on quality that's so obvious. I've added a couple of CN tags and changed the proposed photo. I have always considered weird the ones with the background blurred. Aesthetically they are horrible. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as the former leader of a state and the only Catholic Pope who abdicated in several hundred years. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Notability obvious. First pope to voluntary resign in almost a millenia. Religious leader of more than a billion Catholic for a considerable period. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 10:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Obviously. Vida0007 (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose both on quality grounds. When the unsourced points and unreliable sources are addressed, I will support blurb. - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb One of the most influential Pontiffs of his time.  aeromachinator   (talk to me here)  10:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb clearly appropriate for a former Vatican king and leader of the largest denomination of Christianity.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 10:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * He wasn't 'Vatican king' - there is not and never has been such a title. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Vatican City is an Absolute Monarchy with the Pope as Head of State, making him King. This isn’t a fact that’s up for debate. Spman (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hogwash. It's an elective monarchy (you don't need capitals for the names of types of government, by the way), and not every monarch is a king or queen. The Grand Duke of Luxembourg isn't, the princes of Monaco and Liechtenstein aren't, the Emperor of Japan isn't, and nor is the Pope. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support blurb once fixed It's the (former) Pope. What else needs saying? However, the article as it stands could use some restructuring, and there are enough missing citations that it would be inappropriate to post. Juxlos (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment There will be a consensus to post a blurb but at least the honors and awards section needs to be fixed first. Otherwise, the article is excellent. --Tone 10:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb&mdash;An ex-Pope is sort of a given. Kurtis (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb As per the above. Compusolus (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb and comment - Highly notable and now historical figure. However, I would consider linking the article Death and Funeral of Pope Benedict XVI in the blurb. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Multiple "needed" tags outstanding.—Bagumba (talk)
 * Support blurb One of the most important religious leaders on earth. -TenorTwelve (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb obviously. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 11:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Still not ready Honros & Awards is almost completely unreferenced, and besjdes tthat, there are nearly 10 CN tags left. We don't need to debate whether or not he's deserving of a blurb- of course he is- but nobody who has just said "Support blurb" seems to have actually looked at the article. We need people who care enough about the subject to find references. -- Kicking222 (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Clearly obvious. Also, RIP to him Icantthinkofanamexd (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once referencing issued sorted (now down to 6 CNs and 1 section) Josey Wales Parley 12:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment No CNs left now, I will try to get to awards section this evening (UTC) if not already fixed by then Josey Wales Parley 13:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Several cite tags and an uncited section. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blub Extremely notable death, easy blurb. I have added a link to Death and funeral of Pope Benedict XVI in the blurb. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  12:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Extremely notable death. Thingofme (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Alted Easier target to clean up, more timely. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As it stands, it reads like his death has begun. SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We should stick with the original blurb. That is the standard format for death blurbs of any kind. No need to add extra fluff. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * He's not standard, he's the pope. When people have notable funerals, that's saying something (everyone has an age). And his death has begun, it's his life that's over. Anyway, just a suggestion. I'm also OK with the boring standard line. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 'His death has begun' is not idiomatic for describing a person who is fully dead, in any dialect of English I know. The death-and-funeral article is linked in the original blurb. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As an event, yeah, he's no longer dying. He is now in the state of death, among the dead, however you say. In any words, the death and funeral seem more timely still, should (in my opinion) be the bolded news. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The blurb The death and funeral of Pope Benedict XVI begins in Rome is just not gramatically correct. He died, so death can't begin. The funeral did not begin too, only plans and preparations for funeral. Choosing this as target article is one thing, phrasing is another. It is in blurb anyway. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not set in stone, it was the best I could do without piping. You want to pipe something, go for it. But just as a general bit of advice, I'm telling you, death begins at death as surely as life begins at birth/conception/what-have-you. It's one of those weird things about English, like how two moose are moose. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's grammatically wrong. He died: this is not ongoing; like "his death" it is a singular event. "He is dead" is an ongoing state. There is nothing weird about the English on this! SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Dead" is the adjective for those in the lasting noun of death. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the death/funeral is not taking place "in Rome" as the alt blurb states. It is taking place in Vatican City, which is another entity entirely. Throw this whole blurb out. 174.113.161.1 (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How about I just fix that for you and you don't choose it? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support RD and blurb once fixed - Per above. The original blurb with the added link is better than the altblurb. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Obviously Pope Benedict's death should be featured in ITN, but the way the alt blurb is phrased is odd. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Thriley (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * With the honors trimmed down and cited, the only cn tags appear in the election to papacy section, and they appear to be trivial. Posting now. --Tone 15:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If the six outstanding cite tags were so "trivial", why weren't they fixed before posting? -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The link to Death and funeral of Pope Benedict XVI should be bolded. Of course, obvious support.VR talk 15:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we should use the title "Emeritus", rather than "Former", since that is how he wanted to be treated. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wanted to be and officially was, so agreed. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI (pictured) dies at the age of 95? Or Pope Emeritus? Kirill C1 (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Pope Emeritus' is the usual style, and I think we should use it here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, “Pope Emeritus” is the formula we should use in the blurb. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Let's stick with plain language. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Former and emeritus have different meanings. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We wouldn't blurb "Former Queen X" if we meant "Dowager Queen X." Emeritus is a distinction with a real difference. Dr Fell (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Image? Thank you for posting before I even got to searching for references. Can he be pictured, please. We've sen two pics of Pelé already. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would definitely support an image. (If either of the other death-blurb nominations below succeeds, we could perhaps rotate the images, but we've had Pelé for a bit now.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Little late, but oppose blurb. Why would we blurb a former head of state or a church who died of old age?  nableezy  - 15:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because he was massively influential in his field. Even as a cardinal he was very prominent and influential, and then he was elected to the highest post in the billion-plus member organisation he belonged to, and then he made history by being the first Pope in centuries to resign. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I dont quite get how he was "massively influential" in any field tbh, and his resignation probably was ITN when it happened. I dont get how old retiree dies is front page blurb worthy. Much less with a photo.  nableezy  - 17:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried to make it more about his continuing decomposition and journey through Purgatory, but failed miserably. In the end, the people get what the people want. This time, like other times, they want old age! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (?) This is a major event that affects Catholics worldwide, former Pope or not. MarioJump83 (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Says who? In what world is any Catholic affected by this?  nableezy  - 00:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The death of any pope would warrant a blurb, regardless of perceived influence. Not all states and churches (nor their leaders) are equal. Suggesting this is 'old man dies' is inaccurate. Dr Fell (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Really, inaccurate? He hasnt been pope in almost a decade, he is a former head of state (being generous with the term state). We dont blurb former heads of state when they die of old age. A current head of state, like the current pope, sure. This is firmly old man dies of being old.  nableezy  - 00:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * He was the very first Pope to resign in 600+ years. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We did with the former Angolan dictator. Curbon7 (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And George H.W. Bush. 🌈WaltCip - (talk)  05:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Post posit my support of blurb The pope, of course, has the level of fame to merit a blurb, as will any pope. 65.246.72.70 (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Clearly a serious event. If there's some uncited tags, it should be cited by now. MarioJump83 (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Deposition of Guaidó

 * Comment Wasn't this a few days ago? At least, I read it a few days ago and I don't think I have psychic news apps. (They were hopefully better sources than VOA China, too) Kingsif (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the original vote planned to dissolve the presidency on 4 January 2023 (while maintaining structures to keep foreign assets), but another vote took place yesterday to confirm the decision. Based on the sources I'm reading, the decision has been made effective just after the vote. Here's a Reuters source, too: Venezuela opposition removes interim President Guaido. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mean, I didn't think it would warrant ITN when I first saw it, so it's rather immaterial really that it got re-confirmed. Kingsif (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as per article, his presidency was not universally recognized and some countries (the EU members) do not recognize him anymore after he lost his position as head of parliament. So, this is really an internal political story. --Tone 10:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I would support this if there was a different blurb and the linked article was the Venezuelan presidential crisis. "Deposed" is not a neutral term, and more context would be useful. Marking the end of the presidential crisis, however, is newsworthy. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I do think the story is notable, neither the Juan Guaido nor the Venezuelan presidential crisis articles are in any shape to be posted. Mount Patagonia  (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The blurb is misleading, making it sound as though a sitting president has been deposed by his opponents. In fact, the opposition faction has dissolved its own shadow presidency as part of moves to normalise the nation's political situation. As such, I don't think this merits posting. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - The blurb as currently phrased is misleading or incorrect, and I think trying to construct a more accurate blurb would be more likely to confuse our readers than interest them. --🌈WaltCip - (talk)  16:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb - To more accurately convey the situation. GamerOfStrategy (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability. Nothing has changed on the ground. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 12:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb Guaido was not "deposed," but the end of the presidential crisis and opposing governments is notable. The Kip (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Any expert in Latin American politics around here? The article states that the Venezuelan presidential crisis ends on 5 January of this year with the end of Guaidó's pseudo-presidency. But I, without being an expert, have my doubts that this movement of the opposition will lead to an end of the crisis and not to a simple replacement of leadership that maintains the dispute and the tension. If this will put an end to this stage of the Venezuelan crisis, I support this nomination. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The opposition government didn’t just vote to remove Guaido, but to dissolve itself, ending the presidential crisis at least. There won’t be a successor, and Maduro is effectively the sole government of the country now. The Kip (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The elections for the leader of the house are at the start of each year. The house have voted to agree - twice - that when it comes, they will change all roles (not allowing the incumbents to run) and, thus, dissolve the acting government. That will end the dispute of the presidency. It will not end tensions, of course, but there is an end date to the crisis of different groups recognising different people (which the opposition has realised is unsustainable and possibly doing more harm to the people than the alternative is, bad as the alternative is and bad as relinquishing the challenge is.) Kingsif (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it! Thanks! The end of a presidential crisis that mobilized the international community is ITN-worthy, and by far. The article is sufficiently quoted and up to date. Support altblurb. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality due to the quality of the articles. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Janaki Ballabh

 * Comment. Please can I request a pair of eyes on this one. Thanks in advance. Ktin (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Well-cited and holistic. I'm unsure whether Hindi and Chinese (language) should be linked or not, but that's beyond our purpose for ITN. Curbon7 (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks . Much appreciated. Please can I request any admin to take a look for next steps? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Good enough to post. Article could use more categories though. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jian Xianfo

 * Support Seems sufficient. Kafoxe (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

(RD Posted) RD, Blurb: Barbara Walters

 * Support RD: This is a given, while I would even Support Blurb for her stature in the whole world broadcasting legacy she has made for women.GovernmentAssistant (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD: Her legacy in broadcasting, interviewing every US president from Nixon to Biden (Albeit Trump and Biden were before being president) makes this one a given. Weak oppose blurb Probably a hard case to make. Might make more sense with some further discussion. TheCorriynial (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note I made a procedural addition of a blurb to the nom, since there have been multiple comments already.—Bagumba (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD & Blurb: RD is a no brainer. Support Blurb role in breaking barriers for women and being a legendary broadcaster. Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb: I don't think quite top-tier influential/transformative in her field, and, to me, "legendary" and "breaking barriers" is news-speak that doesn't tell us too much. I don't think she has much of a worldwide legacy - she was well-known broadcaster in North America but she is utterly known outside of it, and I do think that counts for something if we are talking about a journalist's impact. Humbledaisy (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Blurbs should only be considered when there could be a separate article on the death and/or funeral of the person. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's never been the status quo. If someone is a significant enough figure in their field (e.g. Pelé), we post them. Kurtis (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You will note that Pelé had worldwide news media attention earlier for just being sick, and therefore meets the rule that for a blurb there needs to be suffiecient sourcing for an article on their death and/or funeral. Pelé's article also has just had 2.5 million pageviews in two days. He is orders of magnitude more important than most blurb nominees. Stop nominating doomed RD blurbs. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb: I don't think she was notable and impactful to such a degree to warrant being on top of the In the News Category. She still however was a trailblazer in many ways so a RD listing is certainly required. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * RD - close to blurb-worthy but just shy imo. Though I do think some of the above comment understates her significance a bit. And we dont have a Death of Pele article either, though that was an obvious blurb.  nableezy  - 04:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD on quality at the moment; oppose blurb or we'll need to be blurbing every veteran national newsreader from around the world. Frankly, even in 20th century American broadcast journalism as an industry, I'm not sure she's even the most prominent woman - Nancy Dickerson, no? She had a great career and impact within a limited sphere, but if Pelé is obvious and Vivienne Westwood is debatable, Barbara Walters is a firm no, I'm afraid. Kingsif (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Any honest assessment of her career will show that Barbara Walters was not a mere "newsreader." - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 10:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're replying to the wrong person. Either that or read my comment like Swiss cheese. Kingsif (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support RD, soft support blurb: Too frequently heretofore unknown rules are used to lobby for or against a blurb. Was Walters top-tier influential and transformative in her field? Yes. Should a death be blurbed only if the death itself and/or funeral be worthy of an article? No. Would blurbing the death of this journalist require blurbing every the deaths of every veteran newsreader from around the world? No. She was the dean of television journalism (but without the heft of a Cronkite) and a media touchstone. Dr Fell (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree 100%. Curbon7 (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I and a number of other editors state the rule every single time a bad nomination for an RD blurb is made. Users who pretend not to hear us are engaging in IDIDNTHEARTHAT which is a kind of disruptive editing. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this rule documented?—Bagumba (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Assuming your argument is the one you state above (""), you far overstate your hand, considering I do also recall Jean-Luc Godard passing pretty easily a few months ago. Curbon7 (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I know that not all users agree with the rule. Still, it would be nice if users would stop nominating ~80% of RD blurbs beginning in the new year. Make it a resolution to stop stinking up this page in your efforts to stink up the main page. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I know that not all users agree with the rule.: So it is not documented, correct? —Bagumba (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, now let the wikilawyering begin. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You;re the one asserting the existence of a rule no-one has heard of. Decrying requests that you produce is as 'wikilawyering' is tendentious. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not wikilawyering. Your assertion that this is the only standard by which death blurbs are posted is outright false per WP:ITNRD. 🌈WaltCip - (talk)  15:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no such rule. If you disagree, point us to it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support RD, Oppose blurb Same reason as Westwood. IMO, doesn’t meet global/public renown standard. We can’t just blurb people because they’re the “among the best in their field;” hypothetically, would we really blurb a little-known ornithologist or a museum curator upon their passing, just because they were recognized as such? The Kip (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Old Woman Dies, suggest Photo RD. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb Vague descriptors that this person was "legendary" and that she "broke barriers", was "top tier influential" or "transformative", are just vague descriptors. The same low-effort vague labels could be equally applied to many TV presenters. Chrisclear (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - Walters is close in my view, but as I comprehend the standards currently in place on this page, and compare the unanimous support for Pele, I oppose a blurb for the main page in this case. I must add that I hope 2023 will bring more kindness in our rhetoric here. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - Pele was well-known to people who have little-to no knowledge or interest in football. Not the case here. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 06:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb A transformative figure, and household name at a similar level to Pele who was just posted as blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please tell me this one is trolling, at least. Trying to claim Walters has the same international renown and impact as Pelé is going to hurt your argument more than anything. Kingsif (talk) 08:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * An absolutely ridiculous comparison. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If it were about international renown and impact, sure, that's stupid. But there's nothing weird about Barbara Walters being the bigger name in househoulds where she was on TV for most days of the week for years and Pelé only showed up now and then in archival footage. It's all relative, fans. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The !vote did try to claim comparable renown, though. Which it shouldn't, you're right, and what I was trying to point out: a support based on comparing the global icon status of Pelé and Walters basically legitimises using such a comparison as an argument, when each item should be considered on its own merits. And surely the overwhelming majority of people comparing the two in such a way will deduce that Walters doesn't measure up. Like, she belonged to a much more niche field, and may have led in an even more niche part of it. They shouldn't be compared, really, because of the difference in scope… Kingsif (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I think it’s highly disrespectful for Vivienne Westwood and utterly humiliating for Pelé to put them in the same basket as a mere newsreader.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not supporting a blurb, but any honest assessment of her career will show that Barbara Walters was not a "mere newsreader." - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 10:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I know. That was a deliberate belittling for the sake of the comparison to Pelé and Westwood because some people really got very unreal in the discussion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Calm everyone down. Just because Pelé has been included does not mean that the rest of the very famous/important people have to be included. The international impact of Walters is very low unlike him (and that also matters) and not because she is a transformer in the American television she has to be included. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb Very notable journalist but unfortunately her demise comes between that of Pele and Pope Benedict XVI, who are (let’s face it) more notable than her. Vida0007 (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb A notable journalist within the US but barely known in the rest of the world.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 10:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD Not notable enough for blurb; certainly enough for RD. Compusolus (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb Major politicians, generals or religious figures are notable because of the large numbers of victims/people under their control/influence, researchers/scientists and to a degree artists can be evaluated based on new inventions/discoveries/concepts/techniques that they developed, sportspeople can be evaluated on new innovations or vast statistical superiority. There is no evidence of any technical/stylistic advance that the subject contributed to, and if so, it should be explained in their article. Meeting a lot of famous people is not a sign of superiority or improved skill Bumbubookworm (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense, and basically writes off professional broadcasting as an area of expertise. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope the admins give this statement as much respect as it gives to journalism as a whole. 🌈WaltCip - (talk)  15:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not significant internationally and with Pelé and Pope Benedict XVI being so much more notable, better to not fill up the ITN section with deaths. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, doesn't meet the globally transformative bar. Oppose RD on quality currently, there are large unsourced parts of the article in the sections "Interviews", "The View" and "Awards and Nominations". Black Kite (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb She is known throughout North America (well, more United States) as a household name but I don't think she had enough of a worldwide impact that she would need a blurb. An RD would be suitable. --Harobouri • 🎢  • 🏗️ (he/him)  13:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't let the name fool you, most Canadians have lived near enough an American Broadcasting Company transmitter for their entire analog lives. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, tentatively support blurb - While I (as a Brit) was not familiar with her work, the BBC's article on her life alone makes it clear that she was both transformative within her area of work and widely respected by a broad range of people. (We do risk having four death blurbs at once, but we live with multiple Nobel Prize blurbs, and so on, so I'm sure we will do fine here too.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Television news some 45, 50 years ago, was incredibly important and this woman in television news was absolutely transformative, but I'll defer on the international issue, although it's hard not to note such changes in the roles of women has transformed broad swaths of world society in the last 50-some years. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb Not important enough for blurb. Tradedia talk 15:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD and blurb not a run of the mill journalist. Bruxton (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. Blurbed deaths should be held to a very high standard that precludes all but the most prominent figures globally. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb Blurbed deaths need to be extremely notable, and she just does not have the level of fame to be on RD. Plus, this reeks of US-centrism. 65.246.72.70 (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD and blurb - Anecdotal but I'm not American and I was well aware of her and her work, especially from her creating "The View" not to mention her prior newscasting/interview work before that. Amazing career.SitcomyFan (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD and blurb Her interviews have often being cited as sources, including right here on wikipedia, such as in the Tank Man article for her interview with the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party. Interviewed every US president from Nixon onward, and I believe she interviewed Fidel Castro more than any other western journalist, are just two of her many accomplishments that has/will see her referenced/cited in countless biographies of the many historical people she interviewed. In addition to her record as a trailblazer for women in TV journalism. And yes, even as a Canadian, I think America is culturally significant enough internationally that even if she lacks the same kind of fame elsewhere, her important status in a culture behemoth like America is enough. Pele has a blurb, and he was merely someone highly regard in his field; Whereas Barbara Walters was highly regarded AND a groundbreaking figure. 38.18.130.229 (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously Support RD. I am willing to support the blurb due to her being a transformative figure in broadcasting, but I'm not sure if she's popular enough internationally. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Update This is mostly ready, but for that damned list of Emmy nominations. None of the sources I've found are usable, IMDb and other sites on the blacklist. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Copied over refs from the articles on the ceremonies, hope they're suitable. Kingsif (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! We should be ready now. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Leaving open to allow further discussion on the blurb, though at this stage it does look unlikely to gain consensus. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 05:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Stats It is interesting to look back at 2022, the RDs which were blurbed and those that weren't. Looking for systemic bias, we find that there were two women but zero Americans.  (Thích Nhất Hạnh; Lata Mangeshkar; Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi; Shane Warne; Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan; José Eduardo dos Santos; Mikhail Gorbachev; Ayman al-Zawahiri; Elizabeth II; Jean-Luc Godard; Jiang Zemin; Pelé; Pope Benedict XVI)
 * Our readership takes a different view as Barbara Walters is currently beating both Pelé and Pope Benedict (|Pel%C3%A9|Pope_Benedict_XVI views). See how they compare with |Lata_Mangeshkar|Abu_Ibrahim_al-Hashimi_al-Qurashi|Shane_Warne|Khalifa_bin_Zayed_Al_Nahyan|Jos%C3%A9_Eduardo_dos_Santos|Mikhail_Gorbachev|Ayman_al-Zawahiri|Jean-Luc_Godard|Jiang_Zemin the other RD blurbs of 2022 (22M total).  For comparison, here are |Angela_Lansbury|Sidney_Poitier|Kirstie_Alley|Coolio|Olivia_Newton-John|James_Caan|William_Hurt|Taylor_Hawkins|Robbie_Coltrane 10 celebrity deaths which didn't get blurbs (52M total).  Queen Elizabeth is best done separately because she's in a class of her own (44M total).
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Opposition leader arrested in Bolivia

 * Oppose on article quality; would support on newsworthy. If anyone remembers the Venezuela opposition saga, this is somewhat comparable. Kingsif (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose both on article quality and newsworthyness. I'll remind other users that Jeanine Áñez's arrest was also declined, and she was a former president. While this is definitely huge news in Bolivia and probably one of the biggest events of the year there, I doubt it's hugely important outside the region. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note Given Camacho's popularity in Santa Cruz, this event does have the possibility of spiraling into its own fullscale national crisis. If that ends up happening, whatever new article springs forth from the event would probably be newsworthy. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Krisgabwoosh. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This does seem to be a purely internal matter. If the events surrounding the arrest develop further, we could look at it again, but it seems premature to do so at present. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, May be we have to wait and see what will happen, but right now it is not suitable for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Keenan Cahill

 * Comment. Article continues to have a few tags, an orange-box and some work to be done to get it to main-page levels. Might require work by some knowledgeable editors. Ktin (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Don West

 * Support Looks good now. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The article title violates NPOV, considering the significant amount of time he spent in the public eye apart from working as a professional wrestling announcer. The structure of the article violates NPOV, as the "Career" section gives excessive weight to trivia about his time as a professional wrestling announcer, while the following "Personal life and death" section relegates his life as a whole to a mere footnote in comparison.  We have the temerity to call that a biography.  To make matters worse, it smacks of forum-shopping to nominate this at ITNC, where editors are solely concerned about superficial "article quality" concerns such as how pretty the formatting looks or whether it happens to have citations of some sort in certain places, and aren't likely to give it the degree of scrutiny I gave it. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  19:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Forum shopping for a candidate at ITN? I'm really confused. I can't say I care too much about the article title, but most of the citations talk about his lengthy time as a commentator. There isn't much talking about TV salesmen out there.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The article title violates NPOV... That would be more relevant to WP:RM than here.—Bagumba (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see the relation to WP:FORUMSHOP.—Bagumba (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ian Tyson

 * Photo RD Internationally influential folk legend/country icon/major broadcast figure, article looks tag-free now, may contain lies. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD Obvious tbh. Rushtheeditor (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment A few places tagged for citations.—Bagumba (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Edgar Savisaar

 * Oppose Prominent figure but the article lacks sources. I'll change my vote to support once more sources get added. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Vacant. I’m up to work on his article ASAP. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Large portions are still uncited. Curbon7 (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ruggero Deodato

 * Comment. Added a few tags to the page which already had a few to begin with. Might require some work by a few knowledgeable editors. Ktin (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) (Posted to RD) RD/Blurb: Vivienne Westwood

 * Support in principle One CN tag that needs fixing by the looks of things. Part of me wants to blurb it because of her impact on fashion but that might just be a British bias coming from me. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support This is ready, and I already fixed the lone cn tag. Wish that this could be blurbed but Pelé deserves it more (this situation is somewhat comparable to Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett's deaths in June 2009). Vida0007 (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't necessarily have to have an image of Westwood if this was on ITN (although I do think there have been instances where there have been two images so completely fine) XxLuckyCxX (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Notable individual, but not to the level of import that usually merits a blurb. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per DarkSide. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, leaning oppose on blurb. I'm not sure the level of dominance of her field is there. BD2412  T 22:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb It must be a super high bar for a death blurb, such as Pele, who even non-sports fans are familiar with. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb per above. - Indefensible (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Support RD, oppose blurb Unlike Pele, this isn’t someone who was the GOAT. 12.68.17.162 (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, weakly support blurb - Let's not under-estimate her influence. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, whilst she may not be as influential Pele, I don't think we should be ruling out a blurb because "this isn't someone who was the GOAT". Westwood did wonders in her field & the world of fashion for bringing punk and new wave styles into the mainstream, so should definitely be considered at least. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose blurb as per above. MyriadSims (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support RD, weakly support blurb —  Sadko  (words are wind)  23:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support both very influential in her field Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb: Blurbs are not merited on comparative recent deaths (where we should not post one because we have another already) nor on intagible GOAT labels. Dame Vivienne Westwood is definitely on the top of her field here, having designed punk fashion as we know it. Gotitbro (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support both Per above. But I preferred RD a little bit more. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb It is posted on RD now but I decided to take back my support on blurb. In 2022 article, there's an importance tag repeatedly putted on, which is a cause of concern. MarioJump83 (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb One of the most influential figures in her field. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support both I would have to say that Westwood is quite influential in her field, I would lean more towards RD but a blurb would not be unwarranted. Ornithoptera (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support both. In my opinion, she is influential and well-known enough (to even individual outside of the fashion industry) to warrant a blurb. The decision on who gets a blurb or not though is not particularly well-defined and I wish there was more done to clear things up regarding that. Aoba47 (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD; she isn't really notable enough outside of the fashion industry specifically to merit a blurb, imo. AryKun (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb per above. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 06:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD. As mentioned above, she isn't really notable outside the fashion world. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 09:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Some comments on page quality, esp. the couple of "citation needed" tags outstanding, are needed.—Bagumba (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've sorted the CN tags with decent sources. - SchroCat (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose Blurb Tommie345 (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support RD, oppose blurb slightly too fashion-centric for blurb, but definitely RD. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD Looks ready to go, quality-wise. No to a blurb.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Posted to RD. The quality seems OK per consensus above, but there's no consensus for a blurb right now. It seems unlikely one will develop, but you never know I suppose. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - It's not necessary for someone to be notable outside of their realm of expertise to be blurbable. They just need to be a sui generis transformative figure in their field. It's unfortunate that the larger-than-life legendary Pele would happen to pass around this time, as this would create an observer bias that only someone who is as famous as Pele deserves to be blurb, and that's not so at all.--🌈WaltCip - (talk)  15:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It needs to be more than "They just need to be a sui generis transformative figure in their field" because there are tons of "fields" which are ignored. Which are important enough to qualify? It's entirely subjective. - Indefensible (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is entirely subjective. That's how ITN works. See also WP:ITNRD under the blurb criteria for "Major figures". 🌈WaltCip - (talk)  19:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Usually blurbed deaths have to be at a certain level of global/public renown so as to make them extremely commonly known; I don’t feel that Westwood reaches that standard. The Kip (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Walt. Kingsif (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb In the field of fashion designers, Westwood strikes me as both widely recognised and highly transformative. If Westwood doesn't fill the criteria for a blurb, then truly who in her field would? Humbledaisy (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Blurbed deaths should be held to a very high standard, limited to people that are internationally household names. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do they though? My feeling was they need to be transformative, top-level figures in their field - Westwood was. I can think of several figures blurbed in recent times who are nothing internationally. Humbledaisy (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of those cases were errors of products of an era where our standards for death blurbs were lower. It's fair to say Westwood was transformative in her field, but not every field's advancements are of the same level of note. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb I can understand posting it for a recent death, but I don't think she is world famous enough like Pelé, so a blurb shouldn't be posted about her in my opinon. TomMasterReal (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * support blurb At the dawn of punk, the dawn of new wave music and fashion, made a Dame; of course she's worth a blurb. Her inspiration goes from 60s to today. A worthy event. Ofdoktorb wordsdeeds 21:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb: Transformative and influential, with a lasting impact. And free from the RD/death blurb bias toward athletes and trivial 'Google Doodle' type figures. Dr Fell (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Famous and influential. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If we blurbed everyone who was famous and influential there would be a recent death blurb up virtually all the time. There has to be a higher standard than that. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think she goes beyond that. She was one of the most influential designers of the late 20th century, with a unique relationship between fashion and popular culture in the punk movement. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - At this point, even though it looks like we have a weak consensus for a blurb, I'm not sure an admin would be willing to run three death blurbs on the Main Page at the same time. It might look a bit confusing when juxtaposed with the Recent Deaths line.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there, though? To me this discussion seems to be in no consensus territory. I marked it for needing attention, however.65.246.72.70 (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I know the “votes ≠ consensus” guideline, but by my count we have 32 total votes and the yes/no to a blurb is an even 16/16. I wouldn’t even say there’s a weak consensus; we’re pretty firmly in no consensus. The Kip (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine, no consensus. Whatever. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  19:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per others; don't oppose based on things happening too fast anymore than you would support a blurb based on things happening too slow. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Per above. Punk rock is one of many genres that had a strong international reach and her contributions in this field is enough that the punk rock would look different if not for her. Inclusion of Pele and Pope Benedict should not matter. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. I posted this to RD and left it open for blurb discussion, but will now cast a vote on that and on reflection I don't think she rises to the level of transformative influence that would merit a blurb. There are numerous artists of similar standing and we can't blurb all of them. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mihalj Kertes

 * Support Relevant figure in context of the Yugoslav wars and political climate of the former country. —  Sadko  (words are wind)  23:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Proposal to merge current glut of new PMs into one line
So, Nepal, Fiji, and Israel have all swapped in new prime ministers within the past few days, meaning that half of ITN will be lines on these new figures being elected. I propose smushing them into a single line:


 * After elections, Pushpa Kamal Dahal becomes Prime Minister of Nepal, Sitiveni Rabuka becomes Prime Minister of Fiji, and Benjamin Netanyahu returns as Prime Minister of Israel.

No image needed, as Pelé will occupy that box anyway. BD2412 T 20:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose this isnt how we do things at ITN. Each item gets its own line. that's how it's always been. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 21:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fiji will get pushed off once Bibi gets posted, so its not a big deal in this case, I think. I can see this solution being useful if circumstances were different, though. Curbon7 (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Per Curbon7, once Netenyahu's blurb is posted, Fiji will fall off. However, in the future, this could be a useful technique. --2601:249:8E00:420:3194:A2F9:8A7D:7629 (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Meh This is going to self correct in the near future. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose this time, and for the future such thing should be proposed at a relevant talk page I guess, to be discussed and !voted on by the community. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 04:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Per, it seems more suitable here than at WP:ERRORS.—Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, striked. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 12:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose As another editor has stated, each item should get its own line. I'm highly sceptical that this proposal would be put forward if it the blurbs in question related to the heads of government in wealthier countries and/or countries with higher populations, such as the US or the UK. Chrisclear (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed with this as well. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not dispute that at all, but the fact that these are relatively small countries (Nepal, population 30 million, Israel, population 10 million, Fiji, population 1 million) diminishes the significance of having separate lines for each. BD2412  T 16:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN/R is pretty clear - one country, one blurb. I'd definitely suggest taking up your argument at WT:ITN if you want to initiate something like this in the future. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Absolutely not. The new PMs are ITN/R, that means they get automatic blurbs. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Nepal, Fiji, and Israel are about as alike as George Bush, broccoli and a cloud-scudded sunset on the Bosphorus Sea. A merger is not appropriate, certainly not without a change in our guidelines. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose no one provided reason as to why 3 PM blurbs is bad per se.--75.105.36.46 (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing removal: Mahsa Amini protests

 * It is not the case that nothing happens, see  Kirill C1 (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not say that nothing is happening; I stated that the article is not being regularly updated, which is a requirement for items to remain in Ongoing.  Spencer T• C 20:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal - This story is still continuing and developing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just as the Invasion of Ukraine is still happening, so are the Mahsa Amini Protests. MyriadSims (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - still ongoing and receiving updates, although perhaps more to dedicated subpages. - Indefensible (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Coverage is slowing somewhat, but there is still enough updates to retain it in ongoing for the time being. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Support  The updates need to be to the MAIN ARTICLE.12.68.17.162 (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support for now per Spencer and the IP editor above. Recent updates do not clearly appear substantial enough to justify continued Ongoing placement. This can change, but I must note to those above simply noting that the protests are still ongoing that such updates are crucial to Ongoing placement. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * • Oppose there are still protests going on, and we are still receiving updates. Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

support at Best Its a side story, but more importantly theres no update.171.103.249.78 (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal - The protests have faded into a background story now, and the article has not been getting substansive updates for some time. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 04:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, as it is not receiving ongoing coverage. Sahaib (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is receiving ongoing coverage. Kirill C1 (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So is COVID, and we removed that from ITN. Back in late August.--75.105.36.46 (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That was a contentious decision and mistake imo. - Indefensible (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support' consistent with other ongoing removals. Slowdown in both coverage and updates. Teemu08 (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to be slowing, there is a piece of news from today Kirill C1 (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose/keep Still a major story. -TenorTwelve (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal There is still enough new coverage to justify keeping it. Tradedia talk 14:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Timeline of the Mahsa Amini protests indicates that it is still ongoing, albeit with significantly reduced coverage. Revisiting in a week or two may yield a different outcome. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 11:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Updates should be to the main Mahsa Amini protests article that is displayed in Ongoing, not to the timeline. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 12:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – The most recent significant update was older than the oldest blurb item. This is textbook case for removal. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – The updates from 22 and 23 December makes this feel not quite stale yet. I'm expecting similar updates to the article throughout January still. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) (Posted blurb) Blurb/RD: Pelé

 * Blurb obviously. Added to nom <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Forward, footballer, 'greatest ever' by Fifa. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. BLURB. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - beaten to the nom, keep getting edit conflicts. Article is GA class so shouldn't be any issues. Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My only concern is there isn't a dedicated section about his health. If the article is attracting readers because of his passing, it maybe needs to be mentioned more than just the date. But as said, the article is busy, I expect it will come soon. Kingsif (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is now. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Kingsif (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Obvious support blurb -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD & Blurb the article in good shape (and being heavily edited) RIP Josey Wales Parley 19:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - No-brainer. Article is GA and Pelé was one of the greatest and most influential athletes in history.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 19:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support both RD, and blurb if someone writes one. On quality, the article is a GA. On significance, he's considered one of the greatest soccer players of all time. Note my use of "soccer" instead of "football" - I'm an American who has very little interest in any sport, let alone soccer, and he's one of the few palyers I've heard of. If I've heard of him, he should meet the significance bar of being a major figure, transformative in his field. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 19:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb One of the greatest athletes of all time. The Kip (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Article is GA and is being updated atm. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Probably the most influential and well-known player of the last century, even more so than Diego Maradona who also had a blurb iirc. Regards So  Why  19:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb No brainer. Article in good shape. --2601:249:8E00:420:7D41:8C6B:2BFE:2201 (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - If I've heard of an athlete, you know they're famous.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Regarding article quality, the article looks fine. Regarding the blurb: ITN has in the past chosen to blurb people who are the "greatest ever" in their field (as that is a fair interpretation of the "major figure" clause).   In some cases, there may be multiple people who have a legitimate claim to being the "greatest ever".  Pelé is one of those rare soccer players who has a legitimate claim to being "the greatest ever".  That term may be thrown around loosely in some fields, but it is not puffery here: FIFA itself called Pelé "the greatest of them all".  Pelé's death will be a top headline story for the rest of the week, and blurbing his death will meet ITN's mission to help readers find stories that are in the news that readers will be looking for.  Therefore, we should blurb this.  NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * think its ready to post with photo. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Looks good to go. RIP to the legend. Vida0007 (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. A no-brainer for a true legend of the beautiful game. Article is in good enough shape but can be improved further.  Sounder Bruce  19:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as has been stated above. rawmustard (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as per all the above. - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted blurb.  Spencer T• C 19:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Post posting support blurb, support publishing first blurb, where was mentioned about his 3 World Cup wins. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. But I think the appropriate blurb is the first "Alternative blurb", also with photo. Alexcalamaro (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, photo should be definitely changed, as usual. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Photo was changed. Got undone by accident. Have restored. -- KTC (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support of the current blurb It's Pelé, no need for the blurb to describe so much. We would have to keep the format that was used when Maradona passed away. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Post-posting blurb support. Clearly entailed as a legend/top of field in the article. This is a no brainer for blurbing. M asem (t) 20:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) All solar system's planets visible in night sky

 * Comment 1. Not sure about the ITN/R label. This is not mentioned at WP:ITN/R.


 * 2. Not sure the proposed target is suitable. That article is about the solar system and it'll probably contain a maximum of 1-2 sentences on this event (haven't checked it though), which is not enough to meet WP:ITNCRIT. For this type of event, a separate article is best, but I don't know if this meets the notability criteria.


 * 3. The event sure is interesting, and I'll be happy to support this nomination, albeit with a better blurb, if the above issues are resolved.

Regards, The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 18:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1. This is not mentioned in the target article. 2. This is not exactly a rare occurrence.  From The Guardian "The last time all of the planets were visible in the sky simultaneously was in June."  According to Space.com "Such "grand tours" happen roughly every one to two years, on average." ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The name of BBC article is "All solar system's planets visible in night sky". The lead says "There will be a chance to see all the planets in the solar system in the night sky on Thursday." Kirill C1 (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what I meant by "this is not mentioned in the target article" is that it is not mentioned in Wikipedia's article on the solar system. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 19:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This is a picturesque occurrence, but a routine one. 'It's interesting' is not, on its own, a reason to put this on the front page. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Unnecessary, things like this happen once every few years, and doesn't feel worthy of putting on the front page. TomMasterReal (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:ROUTINE, fun-facty "and finally..." stuff you see at the end of daily news broadcasts, rather than legitimate news, especially given its commonality. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

New PM in Israel

 * Comment - blurb should say that he became a prime minister again, previously serving for more than 15 years as a PM. Artem.G (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean we don't have that for Prachanda who is currently on the MP. Curbon7 (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like Prachanda was a PM two times before, but for just 2+ years. It is important to say that Netanyahu was (and is) the PM who sits in the office for many years. Artem.G (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Added alt blurb. This section on Netanyahu's article is blank, while this section should be expanded. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: I have proposed in a section above to merge the three recent new Prime Minister elections onto one line. BD2412  T 21:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This article should be added to blurb: Thirty-seventh government of Israel. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Big election. <span style="background: #ffcc00; ">𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 ☎️ 📄 23:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Dont bold Benjamin Netanyahu, as it has too many outstanding "needed" tags.—Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Election already blurbed in November. Suggest using Thirty-seventh government of Israel instead of repeating 2022 Israeli legislative election again. Suggest alt II.—Bagumba (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and not ITN/R as we already posted him as the winner of the election.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Changes in heads of state/government are ITN/R. Although Bibi's party won, it did not necessarily guarantee he would be pm. Curbon7 (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we already posted this when his opponents conceded and he became presumptive incoming PM, see here and here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle We posted the Italian election and Melloni becoming prime minister separately. As I stated above, changes in head of government are ITN/R. I don't see why we should apply the same standard differently. Curbon7 (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We dont post the election result for American president and then separately the inauguration. And what WP:ITNR actually says is except when that change was already posted as part of a general election. The change was already posted as the result of a general election. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It was not stated that Bibi would be prime minister in that blurb, as there was a chance he would not be prime minister; note the Government formation section. Again, this is the same circumstance as Italy and Denmark, both of which were recently double posted. Curbon7 (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It was stated the coalition that he headed won a majority. That absolutely means he would be PM, as anybody remotely familiar with parliamentary politics would immediately understand. The government formation section of that article is about the negotiations for lower ministerial postings, not PM. If Italy and Denmark were double-posted thats a problem, but not one resolved by repeating the same mistake again. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll take your word on it since I know you know more about the region than I do. Curbon7 (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing is certain in parliamentary democracies (especially Israel) until the government is sworn in. Governments with apparent majorities have failed to seal the deal many times in the past. 95.86.78.45 (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In reference to Meloni and Italy, here is the October 2022 posting of her as Italy's PM. This was after the September posting showing her as a leader of one of the parties of the majority coalition. —Bagumba (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This was not a given based on the outcome of the election. As we have seen in previous elections, the presumptive winner did not always succeed in forming a government, see April 2019 Israeli legislative election and September 2019 Israeli legislative election. 95.86.67.210 (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Alain Bernheim

 * Comment: Any additional information about his area of research? The article describes it as "Masonic research" and then lists an overview of number of publications, but I don't get a good sense about what his research entailed. A couple of sentences and this should be adequate.  Spencer T• C 03:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Spencer, I checked, but didn't find much more. I tried to be a bit more specific in the lead. Not my field at all, - I'd be better with the musical part. - I couldn't find more about the Bucharest competition either. It seems to be a precursor of the 1958 Enescu competition, but he and the other won in 1953, and the other has no mention of it, his successes beginning in 1955. Any help? I found a ref for his POD, at least. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Arata Isozaki

 * Comment: Awards, notable works, and current projects need references.  Spencer T• C 21:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Many bullet-points (following the prose) remain unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 North Kosovo crisis

 * Support. Major ongoing political dispute. Well-written article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Convinced by Andrew. This is not the most severe conflict of its category at this moment. Myanmar and Ethiopia in particular are better examples of recent escalations of civil conflict. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Agree with Thebiguglyalien. --Bedivere (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, but link simply as North Kosovo crisis; I know WP:CRYSTAL, but I don’t see the conflict resolving itself in the next three days. The Kip (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. We usually avoid years when posting onto ongoing, so it's clear that North Kosovo crisis is what should go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems insignificant compared to the numerous list of ongoing armed conflicts. That includes six major wars with tens of thousands of deaths.  The Kosovo spat doesn't even make the list as a skirmish. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I have to agree with Andrew here; we can't possibly include every dispute/crisis/war into ongoing. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 12:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless something substantially changes on the ground. The tensions have been simmering for years, there's a risk it will never go off Ongoing if posted there. Yakikaki (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing Consider a blurb if there's a particular escalation of events, but not every ongoing conflict can fit in Ongoing.  Spencer T• C 19:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose As someone who wrote this article, I'm against posting it in ongoing. At the time of posting this nomination, barricades were still up and Vučić did not yet announce their removal. It is in the news, but the crisis, as of now, is de-escalating and only a few have been wounded and arrested during the entire period. --Vacant0 (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose If Kosovo and Serbia go to war, then that will obviously make it to ongoing, but that looks far from the case. It is a usual tension flare-up, but as stated above, seems to be resolving itself and is not major at the moment. Curbon7 (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose not least because a BBC article this evening suggests that it's about to come to an end. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Not a major event. Alex-h (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are many conflicts that are more important and that are not part of ongoing. Tradedia talk 15:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a war, just tensions. You could say that for many nations right now. TomMasterReal (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: John Bird

 * Have added a BFI source for Film and TV; do all of the items need separate sources individually as well? 86.187.226.58 (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, IP editor. No, individual items of the list do not be sourced separately if the top level source covers the items in the list. However, someone needs to do the check that the BFI source covers all of the items mentioned in the list below. Tagging . Cheers.

(Posted) RD: Abdul Hamid (voice actor)

 * Comment - Current article is well-referenced but could do with more information. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 12:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Expanded and added some stuff, CE probably needed Nyanardsan (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Article now meets ITNRD. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 12:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is good enough. Alex-h (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks okay. Kafoxe (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 08:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arnie Ferrin

 * Support Article looks good enough for RD, pretty well sourced Josey Wales Parley 15:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Northern Mindanao floods

 * Oppose I don't think that with 13 victims in a flood-prone country like the Philippines is ITN-notorious enough. We can't include every deadly disaster that happens in the world (I'm not saying this for you, but it seems like that's what many editors are after). We need to be stricter. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per _-_Alsor and op on quality Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 03:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think in another country, 13 deaths would be enough. But in countries where floods aren't so uncommon, the bar should be much higher. The article quality doesn't meet WP:ITNCRIT as well. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 06:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. This is becoming a huge event in the said area/region (death toll has risen to 29); however, the target article is still marked as a stub. Vida0007 (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. An event does not become ITN worthy simply because it involves death. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Kinch

 * Support Adequate depth, fully referenced.  Spencer T• C 19:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

[Needs attention] Ongoing blockade of Artsakh

 * Comment This is the first I've heard of this, so not sure how much coverage it's been getting. I also note there is a current debate over the article title that may have some political overtones. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The article appears to be constantly updated (which is good) and it is already in a good shape with proper sources. Harut111 (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - In good shape. Still in the headlines. Updated.BabbaQ (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support As per above. 125.59.140.165 (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: This was recently closed as stale (In_the_news/Candidates/December_2022), but the article timeline of events is not exactly clear. There also seem to be parallel sections in "Blockade" and "Humanitarian crisis" (not sure how info is allocated to each section since there seems to be a lot of overlap). With more clarity, I think a blurb is a more ideal choice for this kind of item, with a consideration for a possible ongoing item afterward.  Spencer T• C 03:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not much in the article about the blockade itself. More than half the article is just reactions. Plus, Not the sort of continuous media coverage I'd like for an ongoing item. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 06:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Concerned neutral – I'm still not seeing any non-region-based news publications on this through Google News. I'm also noticing that a lot of the sources used in the article are tweets. Some alarm bells ring for me with this sourcing, for our front page anyway, but I hardly have the knowledge to say more. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * More coverage today from Reuters, Foreign Policy, Le Figaro and Le Monde. RaffiKojian (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose until the article title is settled. Nearly all countries mentioned in the article, particularly in the International reaction section, do not diplomatically recognize the Republic of Artsakh, as such they often use either the term Lachin corridor or Nagorno-Karabakh instead. A country (in this case Azerbaijan) cannot blockade the entity not recognized by that country. Brandmeistertalk  13:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but this is an "ongoing news" proposal, and to wait for a title change vote/discussion to end makes no sense. It's an easy way to prevent something from showing up in this section by the time it (hopefully) end, and a bad precedent. The name change proposal itself is flawed because the person proposing it was under the impression Armenians had other routes to enter and exit the region, which there is not. Whether it is called Artsakh or Karabakh is not even the topic of the proposed name change. RaffiKojian (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It makes sense first to settle on a title before posting the article with controversial title. It appears there's more to it than just remaining routes. All those countries that do not recognize Artsakh refer to the place of the incident either as Lachin corridor or Nagorno-Karabakh. Brandmeistertalk  20:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I don't think the news should be suppressed for such secondary discussions, which as I said can easily be proposed by anybody again in the future to purposely keep news off of the front page. I believe there are people who would rather not see this news shared......... RaffiKojian (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a "secondary discussion" though - It might even be a POV issue on a controversial topic, even when we set aside the notability question. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 06:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "A country (in this case Azerbaijan) cannot blockade the entity not recognized by that country." - This is nonsense. Recognition is a legal/political position; blockading is a matter of practical fact. And I'm very tired of procedural quibbles being used to oppose the inclusion of important news stories. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * While Azerbaijan does not recognize Artsakh, it does recognize that Armenians are living there. In Aliyev's own words in 2016, he mentioned "an autonomous republic" of Nagorno-Karabakh. Whether or not Azerbaijan recognizes Artsakh as a political entity is irrelevant to the fact that the community of 120000 people is being blockaded. Humanatbest (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support in principle - We still have the problem of relatively few English-language sources for this event. But as I stated before, it's my understanding (gained from informal statements by Anglophone journalists familiar with the region) that this is a serious ongoing situation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This part of the world doesn't get as much English language news coverage as some others, it's true, but the UN Security Council has met over this, the head of the UN, UNICEF, the EU, the pope, the Council of Europe, and many of the governments of the world's leading powers have spoken out against this blockade already. It is indeed a serious ongoing situation and while there isn't an avalanche of articles about it, there has been coverage by serious, international news companies (I've linked to a couple). The longer it continues, the more it will get coverage, as it has now been 16 days and shortages of food, medicine and fuel are only going to get more acute :( RaffiKojian (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The dispute has been ongoing since the breakup of the Soviet Union and there are numerous border disputes of this sort around the world.  This one does not seem sufficiently in the news or major enough to warrant an entry. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A blockade, that includes the blockade of food and other essential supplies, of over a hundred thousand people, is easily significant enough to be included in ITN. BilledMammal (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The article was recently translated from the Armenian Wikipedia, and no consensus on the stable version has yet been established. The article currently has a number of WP:NPOV issues, one of which is an ongoing controversy concerning the article name. Artsakh is a self-proclaimed unrecognized republic, the territory of which is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. No UN country or respectable reliable source acknowledges Artsakh's existence as a republic, instead using the neutral term "Blockade of Nagorno Karabakh" to describe events. Taking the article to the news at this moment is not a good idea; we should at the very least wait until there is consensus on how the article should be titled, because otherwise it will be an advertisement for a low-quality article with a POVname. A b r v a g l (<b style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#d43134">PingMe</b>) 17:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So fix it - I agree that Nagorno-Karabakh is the WP:COMMONNAME of the region, so we should just use that and get on with it. The existence of the blockade is newsworthy, ongoing, and independent of what we call the affected area. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't care whether it's called one or the other, I'm fine with either. Perhaps it can be posted with the ITN blurb text saying Nagorno-Karabakh, and linking to whatever the article is called? Whatever it is, I think the discussion can go on forever, especially with some people seemingly not wanting this news to get out. It needs a final decision. RaffiKojian (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – The situation is unique - 120 000 Armenians besieged by Azerbaijan, deprived of free movement, food, fuel, medicine, with families torn apart. It is not "just another border event" -  the sole humanitarian corridor of a large ethnic group is blockaded for 18 days now, with looming threat of a humanitarian catastrophe highlighted by Genocide_Watch  , Human Rights Watch , World Medical Association , UNICEF ,  United Nations Security Council , PACE ,  Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights , EU, US  and France  with another dozen countries. The events are covered by BBC , RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty  , Euronews , Reuters , Forbes ,  Le Figaro , Le Monde ,  France24
 * The situation has attracted the attention of leaders such as Pope Francis and President Emmanuel Macron, celebrities such as Jean Reno, Pierre Richard and Carole Bouquet , and so on. I do not see how the preferred wiki-name under discussion or the political status of the blockaded entity should affect featuring an article that describes an ongoing, widely commented-on humanitarian catastrophe. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, this is a clear-cut and widely-reported humanitarian crisis involving over 100 thousand people – the name of the article being in contention shouldn't prejudice the article's candidacy for appearing "In the news". – <b style="color:#fcc203">Ol</b><b style="color:#fcba03">ym</b><b style="color:#fcb103">pi</b><b style="color:#fca903">an</b> <b style="color:#a3a0a0">loquere</b> 01:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is just another episode in the long term Azerbijan-Armenia conflict. Also, there are POV issues. Tradedia talk 15:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - the blockade section does not have a neutral point of view. I don't have an opinion on whether it should be posted on its merits. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 10:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As pointed by others, the article has issues, in particular with neutrality, and there is an ongoing dispute with regard to the appropriate title. Grand  master  10:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support -- The existence of the blockade is noteworthy (a humanitarian crisis affecting 120,000 people). The UN security council convened precisely on this and virtually every country that spoke used some variation of the phrase "humanitarian crisis/catastrophe." Additional coverage has come from independent sources such as Aljazeera, Eurasianet, Crisis Group, and Human Rights Watch. The article title is not important to whether this is worthy of being considered news. Besides, significant edits have been made to the article since it was translated to English. Humanatbest (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article has concerns over neutrality, even its title is in dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qızılbaş (talk • contribs)

(Posted) RD: Haim Drukman

 * Support Appears to be good enough for our purposes. Well-sourced and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Sourced and ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Sam Walton (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fabián O'Neill

 * Support decent article with plenty of good references Josey Wales Parley 22:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. Sam Walton (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Stephan Bonnar

 * Support pending the Early life section being sourced, (fixed now  Josey Wales Parley 19:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)) otherwise looks good  Josey Wales Parley 22:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Stephan_Bonnar needs references: some stuff is covered under the career section, while other matches listed in the record are not mentioned/referenced in the prose.  Spencer T• C 04:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added a source for the whole table.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 09:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A couple more CN tags, and then one last thing: for the "Legal Issues" section, is there any update to that story? It ends with "he was charged" but no mention of a conviction or not. That whole section could likely be trimmed down to 1-2 sentences.  Spencer T• C 16:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) New PM in Nepal

 * Oppose on quality - Pushpa's article is tagged for WP:OR. The ⬡ Bestagon [t] [c] 06:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC) Support - Article looks fine now. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 06:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Article has been updated. बडा काजी (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The "Results" section of the election article needs prose. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Seems good, national elections covered in ITN. 125.59.140.165 (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ITNR, and articles look good on quality. DecafPotato (talk) 06:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Sam Walton (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Kathy Whitworth

 * Oppose for now; substantial number of citations needed throughout the article. Sam Walton (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Wallasey pub shooting

 * Comment - Yes, mass shootings are rare in the UK, but I'm not sure if the death of one person merits a blurb here. The ⬡ Bestagon [t] [c] 15:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Agreed with The Bestagon. Like it or not, you will likely find that just one death is a difficult cup for ITN to drink from. For similar comparisons, the Paris shooting nomination immediately above this one is contentious with three people being killed.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Random crimes happen every day all over the world. I don't think this even meets WP:EVENTCRIT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose far from ITNR-notable. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per above. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Shootings are rare here, but not so rare that every shooting needs to be blurbed. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose domestic crime that does not yet appeared to have any serious motivation like terrorism or hate crime. That might change if they capture the suspect but on its own, its a type of "everyday crime" not suited for ITN much less WP. --M asem (t) 13:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose that's not for what ITN is for. That death does not seem to have a major and lasting impact on society.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Royal Applause

 * Oppose Article uses Royal Central which is a depreciated source under WP:RSP.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 12:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC) *Support now the source has been removed.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 22:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed source from article. - Indefensible (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Racing horse. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post..." --65.94.214.205 (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Appears good to go. Well sourced and holistic, and yes animals do qualify for RD. Curbon7 (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: 1 more CN tag, then this is ready.  Spencer T• C 04:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated to address the cn tag. - Indefensible (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I wonder how many times I am going to read that as "Royal Applesauce" and then wonder which music artist that is.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Franco Frattini

 * Comment As stated in the nom, there are a few outstanding cn tags. Prose is fine for our purposes, but definitely has an overreliance on quotations; again, not enough of an issue to debilitate it for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The cn tags have been addressed. - Indefensible (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Tunisha Sharma

 * Support per above. <b style="color:#FF0000">C1K98V</b> (💬 ✒️ 📂) 00:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Could use expansion with regards to early life. Curbon7 (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Curbon7, Tried expanding the early life section. Hope this help. Thanks <b style="color:#FF0000">C1K98V</b> (💬 ✒️ 📂) 16:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support! Imsaneikigai (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support! per nom. Pri2000(talk) 09:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as the subject is notable enough to feature. ManaliJain (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD." Your comment should focus on the quality of the article, not the subject's notability. The ⬡ Bestagon [t] [c] 14:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @The Bestagon I assume article meets the requirement mentioned on WP:ITNRD. Thanks <b style="color:#FF0000">C1K98V</b> (💬 ✒️ 📂) 16:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless (I also think the article is pretty good), I meant that this is not the sort of argument to make in RD discussions. The ⬡ Bestagon [t] [c] 16:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - The special appearances section is unreferenced. When this is fixed, I support the nomination. The ⬡ Bestagon [t] [c] 14:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Full support now that refs have been added. The ⬡ Bestagon [t] [c] 16:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Definitely ready. Sourced.BabbaQ (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Career section has limited depth of coverage, seems entirely a list of roles in media without additional detail. Essentially a CV in prose format.  Spencer T• C 03:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * She was fairly young at only 20 and was a child actor for most of her career, not sure there will be much other detail on her roles. - Indefensible (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Per nom. Alex-h (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  The death place in the infobox and body are inconsistent and both unsourced.—Bagumba (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed infobox and removed other unsourced location. - Indefensible (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck—Bagumba (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) New PM in Fiji

 * No thoughts on this nomination? Pretty weird... The ⬡ Bestagon [t] [c] 14:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It had only been 15 minutes since you posted this tbf PrecariousWorlds (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, 24 hours and 15 minutes. The ⬡ Bestagon [t] [c] 04:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am very stupid and cannot read dates PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind... Everyone makes mistakes. It's fine. The ⬡ Bestagon [t] [c] 13:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I nominated the election result, and the election article was great already back then but they did take a long time to actually form a government. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I remember we blurbed the election beforehand. I'm not sure as to whether or not we should blurb both the results of an election and the party actually getting into power. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We did so with Melloni. Curbon7 (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Support PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support swapping out the existing blurb for the new one. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support time to change the existing blurb and article looks good. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support time to post this. Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 04:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Explosion of tanker in South Africa

 * Wait Article is a bit short. Redoct87 (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose These tanker explosions seem to happen routinely in that part of the world. The significance is just at bus plunge level. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of a tanker explosion in South Africa, where I've lived my whole life, or anywhere else in Southern Africa for that matter. They've always been the sort of thing that happens far away, in Central Africa or Latin America (surely "that part of the world", when applied to South Africa, should mean Southern Africa -- not the whole of the world's second largest continent). Eric of Johannesburg (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in the Braamfontein Explosion. It happened in 1896 and a trainful of dynamite is just loosely like a truckful of liquefied petroleum gas, but it's the only other article Wikipedia categorizes as an explosion in South Africa. Information's a bit scant in that one, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait on better article quality. Eric of Johannesburg (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I tried to find any coverage on environmental impact in search of a viable alt blurb, but wasn't successful.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind here oil tanker is an on road vehicle and not a ship. M asem (t) 05:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Fire in Russian nursing home

 * Support - So many tragedies today. Notable enough for posting, but probably needs some work on the articles. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The holiday season is the absolute worst time to have this much loss. So many families, altered irreparably, during what's supposed to be the happiest time of the year. Kurtis (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. Haven't actually checked the article, so I can't comment on its current state. Kurtis (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are numerous domestic fires all the time and there's plenty of examples in the news just today: "Firefighters call for back-up as huge shed fire rages..."; "Dog ‘started fire’ on Christmas Eve..."; "Fire crews tackle Christmas Eve blaze in kitchen..."; "Fire crews tackle large 'cannabis factory' fire..."; "West Belfast: Seven led to safety from apartment fire...";"Fire crews attend Old Course Hotel after laundry room blaze..."; "Warning over spate of UK house fires as residents try to cut energy bills..."; etc. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok but this one has killed 22 people. Curbon7 (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support High number of victims, article is ok for a start. Brandmeistertalk  07:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose tragic incident, but lacking wider significance let alone a long-term impact. 2A01:598:D807:37C:D856:E68B:BE86:A8B5 (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It‘s in worldwide news and we don‘t need long-term impact for ITN. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support high death toll, article is of adequate quality. Sheila1988 (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Opposetragic, but little impact on uninvolved parties. Will be surprised if the article will be maintained more than after its ITN nomination.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose more on the blurb, the nursing home was illegal per the article lead. I oppose its posting anyway, nice laaaaaaaarge map which sort of made the article a paragraph larger. But if this actually comes through the blurb should include that the nursing was illegal.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article pretty bare bones, with multiple 1- and 2-sentence paragraphs, and in need of copyediting. No current consensus for posting, and multiple supports mention that article quality also needs some work; removing "ready".  Spencer T• C 04:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, High number of death toll, notable for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Barely not a stub at 1.8k readable. Also, infobox and prose are not in sync re: death count. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 09:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support 22 dead is a large enough number for ITN. Tradedia talk 14:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Barry Round

 * A wikibio with 330+ words of prose, but only one footnote (his death). Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 Paris shooting

 * Comment Article prose is very poor at the moment. Needs significant editing to be mainpage-able. Curbon7 (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle as mass shootings in France look to be quite rare. Agree that the prose is lacking; very stop-start at the moment with little flow between paragraphs. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 07:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose on quality - Article prose needs a great deal of improvement, but the event is notable nonetheless . The ⬡ Bestagon [t] [c] 07:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Full support now that the article is much improved. The ⬡ Bestagon [t] [c] 14:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- With three deaths, this simply does not rise to a level notable enough to be posted on ITN. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  08:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Authorities are treating it as a racially motivated shooting, which riding it above a basic "domestic incidebt" that we'd normally overlook. --M asem (t) 14:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right. It's also resulting in protests. I suppose this isn't any different than posting the Boston Marathon bombing back in 2013. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per long established precedent that gun crimes are not ITN worthy. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I demand that you cite the source of this long-established precedent and when it became consensus.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? How about every mass shooting in the United States over the past year, including ones that had exponentially more coverage around the world than this. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You may want to read WP:HOWITNWORKS and specifically look at the "Mass shootings" section. We definitely post mass shootings on ITN. The fact that the United States comprises the outsize majority of those nominated does not mean we discount the ones with low death tolls that happen outside the U.S. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  18:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You may want to drop the condescension a few notches. Im aware of how euro-centric ITN is, where insignificant stories that are barely covered around the world are breathlessly brought here as earth-shattering events, but ITN should focus on stories that are widely covered. This shooting barely rates, with the NYTimes for example not even mentioning it on its homepage, same with ABC (Australia), same with al-Jazeera in English and Arabic. So, given how shootings with significantly greater coverage are routinely shot down, mostly by people supporting this one, I continue to oppose this as not meriting coverage here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, in principle. Alex-h (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Three in France is enough.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality; I concur with Curbon7—there are too many single- and double-sentenced paragraphs in the article. lol1 VNIO ( I made a mistake?  talk to me ) 18:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Fairly small death total for a shooting and easily dwarfed by several tragedies even just in the past day. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * • Support these shootings don't always happen in Paris, and three people is enough. Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Random acts of crime are not significant. The political nature of the attack might bring it in compliance with WP:EVENTCRIT, but certainly not to the point where it warrants an ITN post. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. --Egeymi (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - This has motivated protests from the Kurdish community all over France(which we should probably put in the blurb as well), and has made headlines throughout the world. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support – The attack led to death of 3 and sparked demonstrations in France and elsewhere. France police clash with the protestors on Friday, left 11 officers injured . -- M h hossein   talk 08:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose doesn't seem like it will have a lasting impact. Right now even the protests fall short of ITN in my opinion, but perhaps if they escalate. YD407OTZ (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The location & motive for the attack makes it notable enough for ITN. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support as it's a notable domestic terrorism incident. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, notable event. A terrorist event of this magnitude has not happened for some time.--Sakiv (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Relatively run of the mill incident with low loss of life. Likely meets the standard for WP:N, but does not rise to the level significance we typically look for at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question: As an American this (unfortunately) seems to be not super major—is there anything about this event in particular that makes it ITN-worthy? DecafPotato (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You can refer to the support comments. —Bagumba (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * France experiences more domestic terrorism than some other nations, but it is still unusual, particularly using a firearm and resulting in multiple fatalities. In terms of mass shootings, the United States is an awful outlier, but there's half a chance if this happened in the US it might get posted, as targeted terrorism is news (all the personal disputes, gang shootings, accidents, etc. accounting for most of the US's mass shootings are not). Kingsif (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the intentional targeting of an ethnic minority, the rarity of this type of gun crime in France, and the fact that two of the dead are described as "the head of the Kurdish women's movement in France" and " a Kurdish singer-songwriter and political refugee" and thus are likely notable (although neither as an article in the English Wikipedia) all are good reasons to support. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Low death toll, little coverage even a couple of days later. Nfitz (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Maxi Jazz

 * Comment A few places needing sources, otherwise ok. Good night, Faithless. Brandmeistertalk  23:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - needs ref improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Txetxu Rojo

 * I have added Jkaharper as an updater on the nom template for making this edit to update the wikibio, replacing Crowsus & Mega60 -- neither has edited this wikibio in 2022 yet. --PFHLai (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Added a couple refs and details. His 17-season club playing career could use some expansion. Tagged a couple of other areas needing citations, and one of the refs referring to his brother as Rojo II I couldn't find any info related to the cited statement and marked it as such. With a couple additional sentences there, the refs, and +/- some additional depth regarding his coaching career (here is one good article), this should be good to go.  Spencer T• C 02:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support is now fully referenced. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're seeing the page as fully referenced, as there are multiple CN tags and other referencing issues (e.g. cited info not in provided ref) that have been present since the start of the nomination.  Spencer T• C 19:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Few outstanding tags remain; too short a page to ignore.—Bagumba (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Citation tags addressed. - Indefensible (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck.—Bagumba (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean-Robert de Cavel

 * Comment Source formatting needs major clean-up. Mid-sentence citations are ok every now and again, but the article uses them way too much to the point it affects readability. Curbon7 (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize it was a problem, I've fixed. Valereee (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Issues are resolved. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 06:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Big Scarr

 * Comment: Needs a couple refs, as well as some copyediting. Pretty close.  Spencer T• C 17:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zhang Youshang

 * Support Relatively brief but meets minimum standards, referenced.  Spencer T• C 16:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good enough for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Late December 2022 North American winter storm

 * Comment - Have we blurbed storms of similar size before? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's one which was posted last year. This one is expected to be the worst for 40 years and so will be breaking new ground. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't post weather forecasts. HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose as it's winter and it's expected to be cold. Just take a look how many similar events every year are documented in separate articles. This one doesn't seem to stand out.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kiril. Yes, that's what happens during the winter, not only in North America. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but for now oppose on quality. Its apparently a large storm coming in and it will affect a large part of our readership. I have experienced that a Wikipedia article is at times (even much) better informed than a broadcast of a news agency. Its the celebrations going on, in order to assist the ones who need some help in this situation, I support its inclusion also into ongoing.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But readers should not turn to ITNR for news and weather information. Wikipedia was not designed for that. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support/ moved from oppose for quality, article is fairly expanded now and if the death toll is what moves the balance, then that one is high enough now. If ITN has place for issues with a few death and little impact on a larger population, I suggest it has also place for issues that affect millions of people, be it negative or positive.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait - this is definitely worth a discussion beyond saying "winter = cold", but I'm not sure it rises to ITNCRIT just yet. Also, the article isn't updated; the infobox says 8 fatalities and yet the prose only lists one in Oklahoma. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait - I can see indications that this storm might turn out to be pretty big, and ITN-worthy, but as of right now it is just a forecast. Lets wait until the impact of this becomes clear. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait - Although I know stormamania has a tendency to sweep across ITN/C on occasion, I think it'd be in our best interests to wait.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait & Oppose Blurb: The name “Winter Storm Elliott” is an unofficial name given by The Weather Channel, which is naming winter storms despite NWS directly asking them not to. So, Wikipedia cannot include “Elliott” anywhere in a blurb on the main page. P.S.: Pretty sure every WP Weather member would instantly do a pull !vote if the name was included. Lol Elijahandskip (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I really wish you wouldn't try to speak on behalf of all of the WP Weather people. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Being honest, any WP Weather person who would vote to put "Elliott" on the main page isn't fit to edit Wikipedia since they want to add inaccurate and unofficial information to one of Wikipedia's most scrutinized pages. Just being honest. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * C'mon, don't cite CIR here. That's such a leap. The storm has largely been reported on by this name, and while it may not be proper to call it such, it's not some egregious decision to use the name. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Shut up and stop trying to dig yourself into a hole. As a member of WP:Weather, I would personally vote for adding the Elliott name to the main page and including them in Wiki more despite being unofficial. Yes people will argue that its just a publciity stunt but since TWC have been doint it for several years now that arguments very weak.Jason Rees (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As I have been told many, many times in the past (even at ANI by admins), editors can have personal opinions & in this case, my personal opinion is that any editor, who has knowledge of “Elliott” being an unofficial name & who supports it being on the main page is not fit to edit weather related articles on Wikipedia. That’s a personal opinion and I am perfectly allowed to have it. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * do NOT tell people to "shut up". That's rude. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rockstone35 and It is extremely rude to be told that im not fit to edit weather-related articles or Wikipedia after 15+ years, just because I see no reason why the name Elliott shouldn't be included in the blurb on the main page. After all, I have knowledge of the TWC naming scheme as well as various other naming schemes that would go up on the main page where relevant and we include names assigned by PAGASA on the mainpage that are also completely unofficial. it is also interesting to note that weather naming was extremely controversial when it first started with Mr Wragge. Jason Rees (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose and wait — I oppose the blurb entirely, and I believe we should wait. Winter Storm Elliott is not an official name, and the death count remains relatively low for ITN. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per most of the above. Winter cold snaps are not the sort of thing for which ITN is intended. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We're presuming too much too early by saying this is going to be just a "cold snap". 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Its going back to 50 in Chicago next week, so yes just a cold snap. The only strange thing is that it hasnt been this cold till now out here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Here in South Florida the temp hit 81 a few hours ago and is now in the process of crashing down to the mid 30s for overnight. That's damned chilly for here. But not unheard of. The cold will last through Monday. By Thursday we will be back in the low 80s. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * • Oppose and Wait first off, the storm is in winter, which is to be expected in North America, second, the death count is relatively low for front page, and third, "Winter Storm Elliot" is not even the official name yet. Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait just a cold snap is not a reason to post, but given numerous power outages I've read, there is a potential for a death toll, and we should wait on that. --M asem (t) 17:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kiril. Winter is cold. Nothing that special about this storm. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of buzz about this storm being particularily severe, and while you can attribute that to media hype, it has still already killed ten people. We shouldn't discount it just yet. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I still think it would take a serious turn of events to make this storm ITN, IMO. 10 deaths is not nothing, but I think 10 deaths in conjunction with a winter storm is different than 10 deaths during another event, simply due to scope and the natural danger of low winter temperatures (and there is something to be said about the fact that the death totals for winter storms can take into account a large number of cold-related deaths that can not be properly separated from the storm but may not explicitly be related to the storm itself). DarkSide830 (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it's cold in the midwest in December, shocking development. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose alt3 as well, as it simply isnt true. There are on this day records being broken but definitely not all time record low temperatures or wind chills. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to be patronizing. This is more than just "winter cold", and could be one of the biggest this decade. Either way, we shouldn't immediately discount it. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Im not patronizing anybody. But as a Chicagoan I assure you this is nothing. Every year there is a wicked cold snap out here. This isn't even that extreme, we usually have some days with the windchill below -50. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not just the midwest. It's the entire country.. and Canada -- Rockstone Send me a message!  05:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If "it" is intense cold, it is not in Canada. Just bringing wind and snow to the Old Provinces, potentially ruining thousands of Christmases and Boxing Days with reduced visibility, travel and electricity. The unseasonal heat carries on, albeit slightly cooled for four days. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I dunno what to tell you, the BBC is reporting that parts of Canada are affected too. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  05:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Affected by power outages and flight cancellations due to wind and snow, though. In provinces far away from this particular system, the BBC also notes some cold advisories. Nothing deadly, unusual or whatever shocking adjective, just a more stereotypical Canadian winter than Ontario and Quebec have been having. My condolences to you in Florida. I get how that ain't right. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: in the US, the EPA estimates that every year, the death rate due to cold exposure is 3-6 deaths per million. Multiplied by 331 million, this comes out to ~1000-2000 deaths every year. So 11 deaths so far is terrible, but not out of the ordinary.VR talk 21:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait -- the people saying that this is expected weather because it's the winter must not have the appropriate context -- it's not just cold out, it's going to get REALLY cold out, across the entire continent -- much more than usual. As of this moment, it's probably not worth posting, but it's still extraordinarily and unusually cold, and it's possible that things could get really bad. Here in Florida, we're going to see temperatures drop below 32F (0C) for the first time in five years; it may actually snow in some parts of the state. That's unusual for us. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Across the entire continent? Including Mexico, and Panama? Silly hype like that doesn't help. HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Mexico is our friend, but Panama is not our guy, buddy! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you cast the spell force continent (7) or force continent (6, Eurasia) on the target Sol 3 Panama resolves to North America and a lot of druggy places in Colombia with cool names like Medellín, Barranquilla and Cartagena resolve to South America. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait - Since the storm is still ongoing I think we should wait until death tolls, # of power outages, cost of damage, etc. is out until we put it in. Perhaps we should wait until after Christmas Day? Phrogge (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait - this is still ongoing and we need to see the effects of the storm before we can blurb it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait -- US-centrism of a relatively insignificant (so far) weather event. Would be a better candidate if long-term societal significance was apparent, such policy changes or economic consequences. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is US-Centrism at all, especially since it's affecting Canada. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ontario is snowy, but far warmer than it should be in late December. If this was presented as a snow story, I'd Weak Oppose. As an "intense cold" deal, Pfft! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How cold can it get on your part of the Shield? If your weakest province record is -35F PEI 1884 then even Sudbury must be holy crap. Ontario even beats Nunavut! (though maybe North Ontario has better weather station coverage than Nunavut) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My people have largely given up on degrees, and now go by what it "feels like", as a simple number. Minus forty is certainly holy crap, but not uncommon in the Old Normal. Today it's a balmy freezing (or about 30 above, in your southern lingo). The hydro/power is still quite on in this neck of the Woods. Nunavut is presumably still a hellscape (I was wrong), but the relative handful of Inuit know what they're doing, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Since Manhattan's weather records started Jan 1.0 1869: 29F always happened 22 to 99 times a year, 19F always happened 1+ times a year, 9F happened 19 of the last 30 years and a mild minus ONE only happened 2 of the last 13,850 days (2016, 1994). Minus TWO last happened 1994, minus THREE TO EIGHT last happened 1943 (World War 2 blackout?). Minus NINE TO FIFTEEN only happened 1 day in the Great Depression. Unofficially the record is minus SIXTEEN (-26.7C) in the British occupation of 1776-1783 when the saltwater froze so thick people walked across the 5 mile long harbor. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Some damn fine facts and figures, thanks. I'll change my vote to Weak Pfft. Not for any of that relatively ancient history, but because I lost power for about SIX HOURS shortly after my last post. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I also say Meh as it didn't snow, power loss ZERO HOURS and only reached PLUS SEVEN which is only about an average year's low these days. How am I supposed to be impressed by "too thin to measure" when I've seen 2 feet of accumulation? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * TWO FEET?!? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * George Washington and his slaves saw 3 feet in Virginia in 1772. Almost sea level, nowhere near the mountains. Stuck a yardstick in, exactly 1 yard. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Change to Support -- continues to be in the news. Prefer Alt blurb III; or at least those that do not use 'once in a generation' and 'Winter storm Elliot'. These are not what's being used. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose the alternative blurb as we should not be calling a storm "once-in-a-generation" in wikipedia's voice as if there was some broad consensus on that being true. There have been three category 5 snowstorms in the US in the last 20 years. VR talk 02:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I will point out that the National Weather Service called it a “once-in-a-generation” storm, therefore, it is perfectly fine to use it. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As a former resident of the Midwest I have lived through 4 or 5 "once in a lifetime" storms. Its clearly a euphanism that has no right to be used in wikivoice. M asem (t) 20:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your welcome to add a new alt blurb, but I strongly oppose the current blurb and semi-support the current alt-blurb. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added an altblurb2 that does not mention the unofficial name nor once in a generation, but adds a salient point about power outages which are a contributing factor to the deaths M asem (t) 21:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually it looks like the NWS predicted it was going to be a once-in-a-generation storm on the 21st while it was still developing over the Great Plains. We'd need to see them calling it that in retrospect. Valereee (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait If something crazy happens, the storm gets more severe or something, there's reason to put it. However, we are still early in the storm, and while there has been a couple deaths, unless things get more severe, or something major happens as a result, we should hold off on this. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support coverage of one of the most severe arctic outbreaks and winter storms in decades, not only based on its severity but also on its disruption to the holiday season. I'm not sure why this section is full of snide comments mentioning how it's cold and snowy in the winter...that isn't the point. The point is that this system is especially intense compared to normal. By that line of reasoning, no hurricane should ever make it in the news, since hurricanes are common in the summer and fall after all. Just more broadly, this system has attracted constant coverage not only in the United States, but also in Canada and Europe from sources I've seen today alone. If our in the news section isn't covering things that are...actually in the news...then I'm not sure what its purpose is. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 02:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We have to take in media bias which us US heavy, in addition to news otherwise being slow. Cold snaps like this have happened before and are typical, and its only the media trying to ramp up the story. M asem (t) 03:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would ask every American editor keen to see this posted if they any idea what the weather is doing in other parts of the world right now. Does their media ever tell them? HiLo48 (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm the nominator and I'm British, not American. I'd noticed the story building in the media and nominated it when it was the top read story on BBC News -- a British institution.  I've also noticed other weather stories around the world like heavy snow in Japan and flash flooding in Mecca.  It would be good if ITN did more to keep us informed about all such events but you have to start somewhere. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Both the BBC and the Guardian amplify US news Moreno than other regions (though obviously not as much as their UK coverage) so just saying the BBC covers a topic. Also as a reminder, placement on online news pages should not be used as a factor since these can be customized by geolocation or time. M asem (t) 22:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I also must add, beyond the previous comment I made, that this article is a complete mess. There are way too many subsections to the article and each very short. There is practically no information in the lede. This article is nowhere near ready to post in its current state. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - I am seeing headlines from USA Today to this one on the front page of the Times of India. Death toll mounting. Airline and land travel halted. Millions without power. It's in the news, all right. Arguments to the contrary are unconvincing. Happy Holidays to all. Jusdafax (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait for death toll finalization, but conditional support We go by level of media coverage - even if we subjectively think this is just another winter storm, if there is global widespread news coverage, then it becomes ITN worthy. Per above, this is the case here: news outlets are treating this as a particularly notable winter storm. Other winter storms which were not so particularly notable as to gather widespread and global coverage may not make it to ITN, but this one does. I think that's fairly logical and consistent with ITN precedent re: inclement weather events. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 15:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, support on notability An all time record low was broken in Casper, WY. Several temperature drop records were broken. Over two million lost power. Over ten thousand flights were delayed or cancelled. Twenty were killed. This is making major headlines across the world. However, the article is a mess, and the subsections need to be removed and the article needs heavy reorganization, all without removing information from the article. That will be a nightmare for an editor to do. Or, we can expand the subsections significantly, which will make the article quite comprehensive in the coverage of the storm. 64.25.27.224 (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also Manhattan had 58F and 8F on the same day. 50F range is the most volatile day on record (153.980 years of data) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN is not a place to capture weather records, we're looking at outcomes from that. Hence why just being an intense cold snap is not sufficient, but the resulting damage it may bring (which is happening but the extent doesn't seem to be too great, yet) M asem (t) 18:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per TropicalAnalystwx13. Agree the name Elliott should be nowhere near the blurb, though I'm not that thrilled with the phrasing of the altblurb either. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 18:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt Blurb 2: After discussion with other editors, the starting blurb and alt blurb one are going to cause problems from various editors. Alt blurb two covers the topic well. Previous !vote was a wait/oppose original blurb. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Moving from oppose. I am now satisfied that this is not a run of the mill cold snap. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt-blurb 2 only The impact of the storm is sufficient to merit posting. Quality appears to be acceptable.  NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Now support. This was the impact we've been waiting for and the reason why it was too premature at the time of nomination to support or oppose. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Major weather event, as significant as any major tropical storm. I would also support disregarding the !votes that are opposing because they seek international notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The US is not the center of the world. It seems notable to you, okay, but it's not a really remarkable event. Bedivere (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure if this was striking Britain or something, we'd be posting this. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  10:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, drop the "center of the world" invective. The use of it is lazy and also false. People have their own reasons for supporting something besides nationality. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Maybe I'm biased because I'm right in the middle of the storm, but given the scope of damage I believe this is a major news story of international significance. dekema  (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the name at least North America is everything from Panama to Alaska. Chatted with a relative in Alberta for Christmas. It's warmer there than usual. Apparently there is a storm somewhere, but it's NOT affecting much of North America at all. Please narrow down the location in the title. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Even the 1-2% of Colombia that still looks like part of the umbilical should be North America. Many agree Turkey is (at least physical geographically) transcontinental but the part of Colombia clearly in the umbilical and suddenly the border is God. Anyway the non-tropical cyclone traveling over the Great Lakes sucked air in counterclockwise making the map of air warmer and colder than normal look like a yin-yang symbol without the fishes' eyes. With mild air that came from low latitude swirling all the way around to northernmost Ontario by now and cold air from Northwest North America swirling to Mexico and further counterclockwise to the northeast tip of USA and the coming extreme mildness (I'm guessing drunk jet stream not storm this time) already reaching Alberta (jet stream undulations usually move west to east in North America, I've read New York City could have the warmest year change on record (12/31/1868 23:59:60 to now) which is bonkers as the record is 14.44C at midnight. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The alternate altblurb is getting better, but still suggests the cold knocked out the power and killed most of the people, rather than the snow and wind. Not trying to diminish the importance of the homeless people who legit froze, they're just few and far between the car crashes. Anyway, Merry Christmas! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, thats not how its phrased. The storm (already implying wind and snow) brought low temps which gad both e effecr of knocking out power and killing several (not necessarily only to those without power). There's a point in being too pedantic in wording blurbs. M asem (t) 00:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am a pedant, so there's no such thing as too pedantic, in my opinion. Would you be OK with changing "knocking" to "knocks" and "killing" to "kills"? That'd make it seem like a list of three storm effects instead of one effect and two subeffects (I won't fight you on the serial comma and concede that sometimes low temps cause power outages indirectly by making consumers turn up electric heaters and necessitate rolling blackouts). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Parts of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the corresponding states along the same longitudes were just about the only places that did not see extreme weather over the past 72 hours (south of, oh, 60-ish.) The Pacific northwest actually saw two separate storms, each highly disruptive. Four highly unusual things about the Dec 22-25 storm. (1) The deep jet stream trough has dragged freezing temperatures, often colder than Nunavut (northern Canada), all the way to the Gulf of Mexico; (2) This is the second generational-level storm to hit Buffalo / Niagara region within a single month; (3) More than 2/3 of Canada and U.S. (and parts of Mexico) were or are under weather warnings: rainfall, flash flood, wind / sieche, flash freeze, freezing rain, freeze (in southern states), snowfall, winter storm, extreme cold, blizzard -- at the SAME time. Most of the Canadian population and more than half the U.S. population were directly affected. Many places transitioned from an above-freezing warning to one or more below-freezing warnings without the storm ending. Many of those areas were under warnings for DAYS. (4) Transportation disruptions across Canada and the U.S. were exacerbated by Christmas holiday travel. All travel was shut down at the two largest airports in Canada (YYZ, YVR) for nearly a day -- and that simply does not happen in Canada with typical snowfalls. (Other countries come to YYZ to learn how airports can continue to function in snow.) Add to this the heavy cancellations of passenger rail in both Canada and the U.S., due entirely to weather. (VIA Rail had to cancel all Christmas Day and nearly all Christmas Eve travel on its most heavily used route -- train was hit by a tree, trees across the rails, and a CNR derailment on the same tracks. The weather in that region was the same as Buffalo conditions.) Add to this that in Buffalo and other places, all fire trucks and a significant number of other first responders were immobilized by the snow. (How many police cars were struck in accidents while responding to other accidents?) Add to this the death rate (which will climb, because in this kind of situation, specific news is slow in getting out -- remember Buffalo part 1, and multiply by 10). But please, don't use a storm name. It is not government-issued, like hurricane names. It is only one commercial media channel's branding. Btw the last event at all comparable to this in intensity and scale happened in 2008 -- and I would say, based on precipitation, temperature, wind etc, it was not as severe, and definitely not as severe over as wide an area. (Yes, I know the U.S. has had other winter storms since then, even large-scale ones -- but not as severe overall, by several magnitudes.) - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do think the emphasis on this storm needs to be on its scale (percentage of U.S. and Canadian population affected), its intensity (which is what created those winds), and (not least) the deep cold that stretched all the way to the Gulf of Mexico, even to where it borders Mexico (and also see Mexican weather alerts). The last, in particular, is exceptional. Deep cold in the Plains is not all that unusual, frost and freezes happen occasionally in northern Florida, but when sub-freezing cold gets to Houston, Corpus Christi, and New Orleans, it is another animal altogether. One of the ironies of this storm is that northern Ontario actually did not get hit that hard, compared with the south. It was not just the snow (I am from the snow belt: shrug), and the temperatures were/are not all that cold for CANADA in winter. However, the extreme and prolonged SW winds associated with this storm were MUCH stronger in the south than the north, in a much more heavily populated region. Anywhere those winds met unfrozen water (see above-average temperatures prior to this storm), heavy snow and whiteouts were inevitable. Again, the holiday timing also coincided with the busiest time of year for travelling, which certainly contributed to the overall travel chaos (and, regretfully, many injuries and deaths) -- but storms on different tracks have significantly affected holiday transportation before this. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * God, who'd love to read this comment? Howard the Duck (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Any chance you could boil that down to 100 words? Valereee (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

UTC)
 * Oppose per above. --Bedivere (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Which above? Valereee (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support significant event, and in the news in and outside of the US. YD407OTZ (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 2, or similar. This rises well above the regular 'winter cold snap' level. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Significant weather event. It's featured in international and US news stories. Though I would also support AltBlurb 2. Sarrail  (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Major weather event with multiple, 48 at last count, deaths. Wide scale impacts and international coverage. yorkshiresky (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this is a weather event over a very large geographic region with any country yet to declare a national emergency. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 3 or alt blurb 4 This storm has caused many deaths & received a lot of coverage. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting. The article looks fine, the update tag in the casualties section can probably be removed because updates will be going on as long this is taking place. --Tone 21:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ridicuous "Across North America" is insanely inaccurate. Look like classical American hype to me. North America goes from Alaska to Panama. HiLo48 (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * When there were European weather systems, we said "across Europe", even though countries in Eastern Europe got little of the effects. Its a simple enough shorthand for a blurb. M asem (t) 13:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Both Canada and U.S. combined (the countries which this storm affected the most) represent 19,631,761 km2 of land compared to the total 22,319,941 km2 that North America represents. Cheap argument? Yes, but I can certainly understand the use of "North America" in ITN-speak, since we use similar terminology for storms that affect Europe, as Masem says. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  18:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But it didn't even affect most of Canada and the USA. We would NEVER write "across North America" for a storm that impacted everything south of the Mexican border, would we? HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If a storm mostly affected counties like America. Panama, and others, we'd use "central America". Terms that have well known neaninfs to readers. M asem  (t) 23:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you meant Mexico, rather than America. We have an article called North America. It says I am right. HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Land of Canada and US combined is only less than 18 and a quarter million, you included some of the many levels of water (internal (not an international waterway), internal (international waterway (i.e. Lake Superior), low enough to be ocean more than half of the time but close and/or high enough to be private property in that state, the 3+ nautical miles of the ocean that's part of the states instead of just part of America, 12 nautical mile territorial sea, 24 nautical mile customs zone, 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone). Greenland alone is almost 2.2 million, Greenland plus Mexico is over 4.1 million, plus 7 Central American countries too is about 4.6 or 4.7 million, plus Caribbean is about 4.8 or 4.9 million, all land and land ice only (American land that might be double-counted here is only 0.027 million). We're both bigger than Oceania but we're not that big. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Huge event covered by major news outlets and has brought significant impacts to several parts of the US and Canada. I honestly prefer the fourth altblurb (just add Canada to that one; BC had 4 fatalities related to this), but I can live with the current one. As for the unofficial name, unless this becomes like the February 2021 event (aka Uri), I don't think it should be included in the blurb (just yet); as of this writing, it is not universally used by all major news agencies. Vida0007 (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Alikram Hummatov

 * Comment The biography section needs some expansion, otherwise looks generally ok. Brandmeistertalk  11:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be much else available online, at least in English. He is mostly known for the separatist activities in the 1990s after the end of the USSR. - Indefensible (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Russian wikiarticle has more, could be translated and added. Brandmeistertalk  07:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It has more but not all of it has a ref. Already took 1 source from there. - Indefensible (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: John Moffat Fugui

 * This is a stubby wikibio, currently with 272 words of prose and a single-sentence intro. It should get into start class once there is information added about what he did while he was a govt minister, MP and ambassador. Please also expand the intro. --PFHLai (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Thom Bell

 * Needs further ref improvement but getting there. - Indefensible (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Still orange tagged. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 11:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs many more references. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ronnie Hillman

 * Support article in good shape. Very sad news. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. Kafoxe (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Multiple CN tags.  Spencer T• C 22:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose About a dozen cn tags in some key biographical areas. Curbon7 (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Four {cn} tags remaining. --PFHLai (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted - one remaining cn, but it's for a less important thing so I don't see the need to hold it up. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 07:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ali Ahmed Aslam

 * Oppose There is no article for the subject. Then there are multiple sources in the article on chicken tikka masala that establish the origins of the dish as unknown. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * no longer true as I created an article just now. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - While it's not by any means certain that he was the inventor, he's being widely reported as such, and our article is clear about the ambiguity. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the basis of quality. Probably too short for RD at the moment, at less than 1000 characters. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice work making the article on this man. I do think, like Anarchyte, that the article needs a bit more work before we can feature it on ITN. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated and expanded Abcmaxx (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Seems highly improved. Kafoxe (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article improved, appearsto be well-cited and holistic enough. Curbon7 (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * One failed verification tag remains. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 07:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed wrong BBC article initially cited, there are two in the article. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 08:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nasser Abu Hamid
Can people express their thoughts on this candidacy? The article is in good condition.--Sakiv (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Article is well sourced, but it appears a little short. At least, it doesn't seem to meet the WP:DYK threshold of 1500 characters.VR talk 22:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't have a strict word/character count, only that the article has to be somewhat holistic. Naturally, it is very difficult to be holistic with less than (say) 250 words. Curbon7 (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with VR that the article is short here.  The Bestagon ⬡  talk  ⬡  contribs  05:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For DNK, the necessary threshold has been reached. Sakiv (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support (moved from oppose above) now that the article has been slightly expanded, but it could do with more information. The ⬡ Bestagon [t] [c] 07:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Are we going to put it or what? It's been almost a week.--Sakiv (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - a few cns remain. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 06:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources were added to the sentences, and information was added about the place of his birth and the beginning of his life. Sakiv (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: This wikibio seems to be oddly structured. The lead section is supposed to be an introduction or summary, highlighting main points of the article, and the main prose is supposed to be where details and footnotes should go, starting materials on the subject's early life or how the career started, etc. Perhaps the materials in this wikibio need to be re-arranged for better flow. Also, where is the footnote for the date and place of birth? Info in the infobox needs to be mentioned and referenced in the main prose. --PFHLai (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. Much shorter articles were accepted, including one about an Indonesian actress that no one had heard of outside her country. Sakiv (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Length is not an issue. The wikibio is long enough with 400+ words. The concern is how the materials are organized within the article. I have moved things around a bit, please have a look. There is still a gap in coverage between his two releases from prison in 1987 and 1999. (Why in prison again?) This gap needs to be filled. Another (minor) concern is that many of the references lack info on authorship and when & where they were published. I am unlikely to be able to log in again later today (UTC). Perhaps another admin can look at this nom while it is still eligible. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The article has been reformed to the extent that it now meets the conditions, but time passes and no one puts a summary. It was archived earlier today because no one could put an end to it. Sakiv (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Diane McBain

 * Currently needs ref improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Still orange tagged. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 07:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Failed Gambian coup d'état

 * Support once article is improved I still think that a coup d'état, even if it is a (very) failed attempt, is ITNR-worthy. The article needs a lot of work, btw. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The president of the Gambia is at odds with the army and uses foreign troops to support his rule. In such circumstances there will be natural friction and allegations will be made.  As the scale of the allegations is not large and they are unproven, they seem insufficient. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * care to add this information to the article please? Seems significant in this context and therefore to the event. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The information comes from the BBC article cited in the nomination: "He has been distrustful of the military, with troops from neighbouring Senegal in charge of his personal security, while the main international airport and sea port are guarded by troops from Nigeria and Ghana respectively. This has made him unpopular with many Gambians, who feel that he has undermined the country's sovereignty by relying on foreign forces." Andrew🐉(talk) 13:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait the information at this stage is insufficient to support significance. This is essentially a press release stating facts that (as the BBC properly points out) are not supported by independent sources.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait - Per Great Caesar PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless the significance and notability of this becomes clear, oppose PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Lean oppose At the moment, there is no fact here; it is simply a strongman doing strongman things. Unless there is some degree of independent confirmation, it's going to be a no for me. We should not publish a regime's propaganda. Curbon7 (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Conditional support on expansion of article This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We should not blurb events that didn't happen unless under extreme circumstances. All that ended up occurring here were a handful of arrests. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We posted the arrests from the attempted coup in Germany not too far back, for what it's worth. DecafPotato (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, that's not much what happened for the moment.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article’s a stub and the military’s denying it even happened. Not really comparable to that of Germany a little while ago. The Kip (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Darkside830. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 14:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and wait Article is REALLY short, and also not much really happened, only five soldiers got arrested. There is too little information, until more information comes out, the article is expanded, and it is confirmed to have happened, then the article can be posted. TomMasterReal (talk) 02:18 26 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Aminah Cendrakasih

 * Support seems solid. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet requirements assuming refs are good. - Indefensible (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tony Barry

 * Oppose Slightly too short but also all of the filmography and most of his life is unreferenced. Also please do not use Daily Mail as a source. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly prefer to not use the Daily Mail, but it was the only Australian one I could find. HiLo48 (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's an Australian one. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose too short. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Still too short with only 202 words of prose. Existing prose is rather lightly referenced and the first footnote uses the dreaded IMDb as source. The Filmography is currently unsourced. Please expand the article and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I've expanded the article slightly with information that I've found. Filmography is now sourced too. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Change to Support in good shape now, lots of references. Marked as ready. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Zelenskyy addresses Congress

 * Comment There is no mention of this in the linked articles. - Indefensible (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This is notable to me but since the russian invasion of ukraine is already covered in ongoing I don't feel the reason to support this yet. However, if it does turn out that this gains significant news coverage or if it results in something major then I would change my vote. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not notable, as demonstrated by the fact that this 'news' is not mentioned in any of the articles in the blurb. Furthermore, the blurb is sloppy - US Congress is a redirect. Chrisclear (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not a historic visit by any means. There have been 79 past foreign leaders to address a joint meeting of Congress between 1975-2022. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Opposethats nothing, and beside covered in ongoing. Speedy close.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close. Leaders often stop by legislatures while making foreign trips. We didn't post every time Obama stopped by the British Parliament while making a trip to the UK. Canuck 89 (Talk to me) or visit my user page  23:10, December 21, 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close per all above. Again, this is not a news journal _-_Alsor (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose and Speedy Close Per above. MyriadSims (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Treatment of women by the Taliban

 * Oppose, sadly, only because this is more of the same by the Taliban in how women are treated there, and really isn't a step away from the current status quo. M asem (t) 05:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support with the total education ban. That's clear more than the status quo. M asem (t) 20:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I agree this approach from the Taliban is nothing new, but it is a major reversal of a long-standing consensus and a big turn in ramping up their doctrine after initially claiming they would not do so. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - I can see the logic behind the nomination, but this happening in Afghanistan is not really news.  The Bestagon (previously Quantum XYZ)  ( chat  ) 08:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Plus, I don't think the one sentence-long update (Forgive me if I'm wrong here; haven't thoroughly looked at the article.) meets WP:ITNCRIT.  The Bestagon (previously Quantum XYZ)  ( chat  ) 08:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNCRIT has been met by now, I guess. I included new info from the Talibans first Government. Will expand more. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A country banning the right to higher education, which under normal circumstances is constitutionally protected everywhere, for a specific group of people in the 21st century is notable news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:RGW. Banedon (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What? How is this tendentious? This was really not the aim. Please explain, so I can avoid this perception in the future. My rationale was: If the death of a few people is worth an ITN blurb, half the population of a country should be, too. It will affect far more people than the deaths of a many catastrophes we post on ITN. Who will think of the deaths of a catastrophe a few weeks later. This will be news for months if not years to come. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. Still oppose using "Taliban" and replace with "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan". Also this should link to Higher education in Afghanistan. Banedon (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Its now all schools, not just higher ed. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're absolutely right here. If people oppose this, I would certainly hope that they're also opposing every single catastrophe that's of a lesser scope than this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per above. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Our article does not seem to mention this news at all? Might support if our article had an in-depth description of how this is a unique change compared to all the other Taliban bans and laws put into place in the past year (such as the November ban from public spaces). It's particularly confusing because our article suggests that most schooling for women has been largely banned since March. Does this new ban only affect the current cohort? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Article looks a lot clearer already, but I am still unclear on what the situation was like before this new ban. It is hard to tell how big this change actually is compared to the situation a month ago. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Banedon / Fully expected and not really important on the global scale 5.44.170.26 (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I think we need to lower the bar for human rights/women's rights stories to be posted on ITN. Yes, it's the Taliban and we all expect it. But it was apparently newsworthy enough for the Grauniad to cover.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We should not be lowering the bar for that reason, that us definitely an RGW proposition which we should avoid. M asem (t) 20:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, but the article needs more expansion to meet ITNCRIT. The WP:RGW opposes are specious. Black Kite (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And I also think slightly off-putting to those who don't regularly contribute to ITN. The lingo that we circulate around here doesn't always make sense to people who make good faith nominations, and it can also present a chilling effect against future noms. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you believe that WP:RGW opposes are offputting, then you perhaps shouldn't support with the rationale "I think we need to lower the bar for human rights/women's rights stories to be posted on ITN." which reads exactly like, well, WP:RGW. Fram (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:RGW has nothing to do with my support. I am interested in having more underrepresented topics on ITN in general without needing to have some altruistic bias to go along with it. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - I would actually support this but the article makes little to no mention about this at all. Because of that it's hard for me to actually support this. i would support it once added though. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Article quality is now better. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * • Oppose per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * With the new development on a total ban for all education beginning with primary school (see WSJ article), support once article has the developments. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And Ive updated the target article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose on quality  per above. Agree with WaltCip that human rights developments are a good candidate for ITN (not for RGR reasons, to me it's fairly easy to conclude that stories about major developments or regressions in human rights are newsworthy), but the target article will need to provide further information about the topic before we can post it. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 17:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Update looks good, struck the oppose part of this !vote. Much thanks to the editors who got the article up to shape, and to Nableezy for offering altblurb3. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 19:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, enough quality to be posted. Alexcalamaro (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Needs a better blurb; no offense to the proposers, but all 3 blurbs are pretty awful. Curbon7 (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Proposed alt3. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There we go. Curbon7 (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * May I suggest also "attending or teaching" to that blurb? This move completely eliminates women from all elements of the education system there. M asem (t) 00:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * added, though I feel like it would flow better with teaching at or attending but also feel like the main bit of the story is attending and that should come first. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is the worldwide news section for big events. The Taliban in Afghanistan oppressing and restricting women (like they always do) is a bad thing and I feel sorry for the women but isn't really ITN-worthy. Evan224 (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to dramatically misunderstand what ITN does and does not consider for posting. Not to gatekeep, but as this is only your 4th edit, I would highly recommend observing first before participating, as there is load of nuance that goes into blurbing. Curbon7 (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd sure like to direct you to WP:ITNGLOBAL... Yes, this is just an essay, but the point is still the same, no matter how you read it: there is no requirement for international notability on ITN. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Oposse per Evan224. Shadow4dark (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. While I was originally inclined to oppose under the premise of "well that's just what the Taliban does", a complete education ban is certainly worth posting. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until Taliban's ban on primary education becomes clearer. The Taliban ban of women from universities is well supported by RS, but banning women from primary schools is not clear. NPR's article (dated Dec 21) states, in present tense, "They allow girls to attend school until the sixth grade, when primary school ends. But they have prevented most girls from attending formal secondary school education..." CNN (date Dec 20) quotes the US State Department as saying "With the implementation of this decree, half of the Afghan population will soon be unable to access education beyond primary school". WaPo's article (Dec 21) also gave more nuanced coverage than WSJ"While the official statement issued Tuesday by the Ministry of Education only covered universities, some female teachers and girls at primary schools in the Afghan capital, Kabul, reported being turned away from classes Wednesday morning." It might be that the primary education ban happened very recently and RS haven't yet caught up to it. Alternatively, I would support a blurb along the lines of "Taliban ban university education for women".VR talk 06:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to politely ask that Evan224 and Shadow4dark be reminded that at the top of this page is a banner that reads "Please do not... Oppose an item solely 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 generally unproductive." <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 19:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support ALT3 per my statements above. However, it should be noted that this is a support in principle, as the article is not up to par. Curbon7 (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support and note of concern This event has received widespread, global media coverage: the India Times, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, the Jerusalem Post, the New York Times, Le Monde, etc. The RGW concerns have more of a basis in the subjective views of editors here than the actual level of coverage this has received. On that note, I would like to note with concern that proposals for ITN to ignore this event - despite every major news outlet in the world's coverage of it - simply because according to them, "it's just not that big of a deal coming from the Taliban, women are always going to be oppressed" reflects a deeper-seeded problem which we collectively must seek to avoid. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 17:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * More than just that one bias, there American and Euro-centric biases. The WP:CSB response to the WP:RGW argument seems pretty obvious to me. We would of course be covering a move like this if it wasnt targeting poor brown women in a country that doesnt speak English. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per above. BilledMammal (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt 3 - the update looks sufficient now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose alt 3 for being misleading (which is a WP:V violation). I am totally disgusted with Taliban's despicable treatment of women, but we need to maintain accuracy. I agree that Taliban banned university education for women, but did they ban primary education? NPR's Dec 22 article gives a more nuanced picture. It points out that some Taliban did indeed kick out female teachers from primary schools, but allowed "male staff" to remain (implying school wasn't totally shut down), and that this happened at a time the schools were closed for the winter anyway. It also adds that "It's unclear how extensive the ban will be; it was largely reported in one swath of Kabul." Further, the article says "[Taliban] ministry of education official said the "mujahideen" or Taliban security forces, who ordered female employees to go home had acted on a "misunderstanding." "Until there's an official letter," the notice said, "they are allowed to continue their jobs and come to school." Most RS are only reporting Taliban's ban on university education and are currently refraining from reporting Taliban's alleged ban on primary education.VR talk 21:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Times of London 22/12/22:"The Taliban have banned girls from attending primary school, the day after excluding women from university education. They also decreed women would no longer be able to work in any form of educational institutions in a further blow to personal freedoms in Afghanistan. The decisions were made during a meeting between clerics, community leaders, police, the General Directorate of Intelligence and the Ministry of Vice and Virtue. They were declared to be temporary measures, but were introduced as such in the 1990s and never lifted by the previous Taliban regime." <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Is the Times story merely reporting the WSJ story? I see that both seem to quote a shopkeeper named "Ghulam Sarwar Haidari" and I know newspapers often quote each other.
 * The NPR seems to have info that contradicts part of the WSJ story. WSJ states that "Taliban officials on Wednesday also barred female staff, including teachers, from working in schools". But the NPR, as shown above, says female teachers were thus far only expelled in part of Kabul and also quotes some Taliban officials as saying that expulsion was a "misunderstanding" and female teachers "are allowed to continue their jobs". The NPR article has more depth of coverage than the WSJ or ToL articles.VR talk 22:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding to that, most countries (US, EU, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia) have condemned Taliban for banning women from universities. Yet a total ban on all female education is even worse, but I don't see any country condemning Taliban for that. Prominent Afghans, like Rahmanullah Gurbaz, have also condemned the ban on universities but said nothing about a ban on all education. Taliban minister defended the university ban, but said nothing about a total ban.VR talk 22:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Vote Tally: I count 14 votes in favour, 8 opposed on principle, 2 opposed due to blurb/article quality. Hopefully this is helpful to a passerby assessing whether there is consensus to post. <b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b><sup style="color:purple">and <b style="color:lime">Flopped</b> <b style="color:grey"> ツ</b> 23:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether a piece of news is ITN-worthy is largely a vote count, yes. But concerns regarding blurb accuracy (which is fundamentally a WP:V issue) should be treated as WP:PNSD.VR talk 23:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The two opposes per quality here and here were withdrawn/changed to support here and here. One who opposed for WP:RGW now opposes the inclusion of the Taliban in the blurb and wants the inclusion of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (if that makes sense...). It is not Islam that bans women from university its the Taliban and Afghanistan is in the blurb. Another oppose was per the one who opposed for WP:RGW... One opposed because this is what it be expected of the Taliban and therefore not newsworthy, another one per the former one. Millions of women will be deprived of eduction for being women, its been announced by the Government. If it was the complete education or only University education is disputed, fact is, the announcement for the ban from universities was widely reported on.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do think my question on whether this is actually a change from the March 2022 plans still stands. The article as it exists now suggests women were already banned from going to university. I do feel more comfortable with blurbing this either way now that even primary schools are included, though! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But putting the event on is mainly about arguments. One argument is about righting wrongs. But I do not see how it applies here because hardly anyone used that as an argument. Second argument was that it the page is for worldwide events. But this is a big event that achieved worldwide coverage and analysis in reliable sources, see article by Gordon Brown. Suspending education for females in a country is a worlwide event. I don‘t find arguments that convincing, and other opposes were on quality or “per above“, but there were hardly substantial Arguments above. And I argue that even if it was expected from Taliban, this does not mean that it is not significant event. We post significant expected events, like election results, sports events, awards. This still important milestone, albeit negative one. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * there some more sources on the primary school ban. The Evenening Standard says The second edict, prohibiting girls from attending primary school, came on Thursday. The step came following a meeting between police officials, the ministry for the propropagation of virtue and prevention of vice, and the country’s national intelligence agency. The latest move, which was not officially announced, means Afghan women and girls now effectively face a total ban on education. ABC News has completely blocking female students' access to education through a series of crackdowns culminating on Wednesday in a ban forbidding them from attending elementary school, setting the country's women back decades. Do you still oppose alt3? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * yes I still oppose that blurb. The Evening Standard is hardly a reliable source, and the source it cites for the primary school claim is sourced to WP:DAILYMAIL, which is so bad that it is deprecated. ABC News is a better source, but it mentions a ban on "elementary" (is that the same thing as "primary"?) school in passing; for that claim it links to an article that only affirms the university ban but says nothing about primary nor elementary schools.VR talk 19:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * CNN is now covering the primary school development too, see this video from 1:36 onwards. The CNN reporter, Nada Bashir, notes that 3 primary schools for girls were shut down in Kabul, but also notes that schools in Afghanistan are already closed due to winter holidays, and "its still unclear how far reaching this policy will be". VR talk 19:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, elementary is the same as primary and would be the word most often used in the United States. And ABC is not mentioning it passing, it is saying the university ban was extended the following day, the same as the other sources report. I think this is reliably sourced and dont really see a reason to question it on the basis that some other sources have yet to report that development. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are rather glaring omissions by other sources. For example, the UN mission which has personnel inside Afghanistan, UNAMA, said on Wednesday "The UN and its humanitarian partners also urge the de facto authorities to reopen girls' schools beyond the sixth grade". Wouldn't they know about such a ban if it existed?
 * And NPR quoted a contradicting order from the Taliban minister of education saying that female teachers are still allowed to teach. Both CNN and WaPo have used the word "some" to describe the amount of primary schools that the Taliban have closed.VR talk 19:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong support. This is the major development. I would vote support even in case of university ban alone, but here is comprehensive ban for female education and for women to be teachers. I do not see how the uncertainty with primary education affects importance of the event, because it is huge. Gordon Brown commented on this. It may not be so surprising - but isn't this fact a bit schocking, that we know and knew that females are going to be stripped of basic rights? We posted some unknown to most people sports competitions, this is a big thing that changes much fundamentally. .Kirill C1 (talk)
 * Can also add the latest development, banning women from NGOs. Maybe a hook like The Taliban increasingly restrict women from education and civil society. I really dont get how this isnt getting posted though. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The ban on women from NGOs looks widely covered, so I would be fine with adding that to the blurb. However, the fact that so many RS covered the university ban, and are now covering the NGO ban, but saying nothing about the supposed primary school ban is even more reason to doubt the veracity of WSJ's claims. See the coverage of the NGO ban by Reuters, BBC and Al-Jazeera, Dawn (from neighboring Pakistan) - all of which mention the university ban, but none say anything about the supposed primary school ban.VR talk 00:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that entirely, that other sources dont also report something but do not dispute does not bring a reliable source in to question. There need to be sources disputing it. Anyway, there are more sources covering the primary school ban as well, eg The Telegrapgh. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, I mentioned 3 sources that gave information both in support and against a country-wide primary school ban for girls in Afghanistan (NPR, CNN and WaPo). The 4th source to give information both in support and against such a ban is the NYT article you linked above (emphasis mine): "[Taliban] security forces in the capital, Kabul, this week held meetings with school principals, teachers and administrators of private education centers, instructing them to shut down their winter courses for all girls — including those in primary schools — and send home their female teachers, according to six education professionals across five districts in Kabul. Schools are currently on winter break but many students have been attending supplementary courses at private schools and education centers before the spring semester begins next year. When asked about the meetings, a spokesman for the [Taliban] Ministry of Education denied other reports that the government had officially banned girls from attending primary schools. But the meetings raised fears that the Afghan government may be laying the groundwork to further restrict girls’ education next year." The telegraph is behind a paywall for me.VR talk 01:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Treatment_of_women_by_the_Taliban could use some of the additional nuance from other references describing reported conditions in the country, such as from the NPR article.  Spencer T• C 02:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Major political shift from the last 20 years, and it's at a scale that's largely unprecedented in the modern world. I would also support disregarding !votes that are seeking international notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. we are seeing growing consequences of this important shift. Yakikaki (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Added altblurb 4 citing the New York Times for the ban on university and NGOs. The primary school claim is disputed in this article. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 07:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated article to accommodate the new development. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 07:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 19:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support It's ridiculous how some editors think that half a country losing a fundamental human right is the status quo. Just because we expected something to happen doesn't mean it's not news (e.g. we all knew the Queen was going to die, but it was still big news when she did). I'm glad its posted, but the original sentiment seems like a Global North and Global South bias, and a gender bias. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 20:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vladimír Krčméry

 * Comment: Article could use some copyediting, and would benefit from a little more regarding the subject's area of expertise (he was a tropical medicine who helped with health care in developing nations, but where specifically?).  Spencer T• C 21:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Did a little clean up; he was active in at least Cambodia, Haiti, and Kenya. - Indefensible (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Nasser Abu Hamid
Can people express their thoughts on this candidacy? The article is in good condition.--Sakiv (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Article is well sourced, but it appears a little short. At least, it doesn't seem to meet the WP:DYK threshold of 1500 characters.VR talk 22:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't have a strict word/character count, only that the article has to be somewhat holistic. Naturally, it is very difficult to be holistic with less than (say) 250 words. Curbon7 (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with VR that the article is short here.  The Bestagon ⬡  talk  ⬡  contribs  05:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For DNK, the necessary threshold has been reached. Sakiv (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support (moved from oppose above) now that the article has been slightly expanded, but it could do with more information. The ⬡ Bestagon [t] [c] 07:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Are we going to put it or what? It's been almost a week.--Sakiv (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - a few cns remain. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 06:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources were added to the sentences, and information was added about the place of his birth and the beginning of his life. Sakiv (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: This wikibio seems to be oddly structured. The lead section is supposed to be an introduction or summary, highlighting main points of the article, and the main prose is supposed to be where details and footnotes should go, starting materials on the subject's early life or how the career started, etc. Perhaps the materials in this wikibio need to be re-arranged for better flow. Also, where is the footnote for the date and place of birth? Info in the infobox needs to be mentioned and referenced in the main prose. --PFHLai (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. Much shorter articles were accepted, including one about an Indonesian actress that no one had heard of outside her country. Sakiv (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Length is not an issue. The wikibio is long enough with 400+ words. The concern is how the materials are organized within the article. I have moved things around a bit, please have a look. There is still a gap in coverage between his two releases from prison in 1987 and 1999. (Why in prison again?) This gap needs to be filled. Another (minor) concern is that many of the references lack info on authorship and when & where they were published. I am unlikely to be able to log in again later today (UTC). Perhaps another admin can look at this nom while it is still eligible. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Franco Harris

 * Oppose At least four completely unsourced paragraphs in the "Career" section, and miscellaneous uncited statements elsewhere. Support Good work that. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. One of the all-time greats, scored on perhaps the greatest play in all of football history. Seems to be sufficiently referenced. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources have been added. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Well-sourced, no more cn tags remaining. Also moved this to December 20 as he died on that day. Vida0007 (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Bannu counterterrorism centre attack and siege

 * Support - Blurb is a little too convoluted maybe, but we could fix it. The event itself is definitely notable, but the articles need a lot of work. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose on quality per Precarious.  The Bestagon ⬡  talk  ⬡  contribs  11:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once updated as I believe this is notable enough for ITN.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support but the title & blurb are too long. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Proposing a reworded blurb that may be more lean?: Pakistan's security forces free all hostages at a counterterrorism office in Bannu, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, killing 33 local Pakistani Taliban insurgents and losing 2 officers. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * it maaaaayyyyyy be okay to ommit "losing 2 officers"?
 * Alternatively:
 * Pakistani security forces end the Bannu counterterrorism office hostage situation, freeing all hostages, killing 33 Pakistani Taliban insurgents, and losing 2 officers. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, the numbers seem to be changing - so maybe it will be best to omit the numbers and say somethign like, "killing all the Pakistani Taliban insurgents / hostage takers"? Sorry for multiple comments instead of one unified one.
 * The article itself could also use some work, so Oppose on quality. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above, suggesting alternative blurb. Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. The article needs work but the event is notable. NMasiha (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb2 and improved the article. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I suggest to wikilink a bit fewer articles. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Holy WP:SEAOFBLUE Batman! Added altblurb3. Black Kite (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb III per above. MyriadSims (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment should definitely link to Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa though. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * All the blurbs include a piped link to the insurgency in KP. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * They do now, yes, because I re-linked it. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality - Few unsourced sentences and the article is quite short. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 06:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Sandy Edmonds

 * Comment: Article could use some sections, otherwise has good depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 01:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Added some sections. - Indefensible (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A closer look at the references shows some issues. Added some CN tags; the sergent.com.au reference appears to be a personal blog/website so those would need to be adjusted, especially since it references claims that the subject was a "pin-up girl"; the Auckland Index ref was not working for me and also is used as a reference for material related to the subject's personal appearance; the smfforfree ref appears to be for a forum (it requires some kind of username/password so I cannot access that). This is just from some spot-checking, so needs a good look at all the referencing to ensure that it is appropriate and accurate.  Spencer T• C 21:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Manfred Messerschmidt

 * Support Seems sufficient. Kafoxe (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - article seems to meet requirements; good work on the updates. - Indefensible (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support (article creator) -- it would be great to get recognition for this important historian, even if upon death. Nice work on the additions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stanley Drucker

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements, good work on the updates. - Indefensible (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: could you please write a bit of a lead, and then have his life or however to call it after the TOC. Because as it it ism the TOC is of no help, - who will even see it's there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Grimes2 (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Gary Knafelc

 * Oppose Very short, yet not completely sourced. Black Kite (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Added refs. Short but should barely qualify IMO. - Indefensible (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage. NFL playing career is summarized in anecdote about him being carried off the field and a single additional sentence that has minimal information beyond what the infobox already has (Knafelc was a member of Vince Lombardi's first two NFL title teams in 1961 and 1962, and was inducted into the Packers Hall of Fame in 1976.).  Spencer T• C 23:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose A stub at 1,431 readable bytes currently.—Bagumba (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A bit too stubby with only 259 words of prose. --PFHLai (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Encarna Hernández

 * Support Looks sufficiently sourced to me. Black Kite (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Mircea Dușa

 * A bit too stubby with only 256 words of prose. --PFHLai (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Max Brito

 * Comment Not updated with details of death. Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Added to article. - Indefensible (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Adequate depth regarding what subject was notable for, referenced.  Spencer T• C 01:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Tom Browning

 * Needs quite a lot of ref improvement still. - Indefensible (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite a number of footnote-free paragraphs. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Martin Duffy

 *  Weak Support Referencing looks good but article length does not impress. I think it's adequate. But only barely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've expanded it a bit from the obits now. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sufficiently improved to strike my "weak." -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Terry Hall

 * Oppose on quality - This is going to need a lot more citations before this can be supported. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Looks to be well referenced now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Supoort, well sourced now, fine job. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine Alex-h (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. Important member of the UK Ska scene. <b style="color: #ea5a5a;">Tartar</b>Torte 18:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted by Spencer. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Santino (chimpanzee)

 * Missing a couple refs at the moment. - Indefensible (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: RIP. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs more citations, and the circumstances of his death need to be mentioned in the body of the article, not just the lead.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Sargam Koushal

 * Comment - Did we blurb the result in 2021? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No - we didn't even blurb Miss World 2021, which is the premier pageant. Black Kite (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact I can't remember us ever blurbing any beauty pageant, though I may be wrong about that. Black Kite (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Then I would oppose based off of precedent. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also say that the article should include an image if it was to be posted. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Mrs. World is a minor pageant (the article is a partially sourced table of winners and a couple of controversies - there is nothing about the actual pageant itself).  The winner's article is pretty much a stub with multiple grammar errors and it could actually be argued that she fails WP:BLP1E. Black Kite (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per black kite.  The Bestagon (previously Quantum XYZ)  ( chat  ) 12:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not the top tier in this field. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Not only is this a minor beauty pageant, I don't think ITN should post any beauty pageants. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insignificant.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Elon Musk to step down as head of Twitter

 * Wait - Even though this result seems likely, the poll is still going on. We don't call an election before all the results are in, even if a candidate winning seems overwhelmingly likely. This is especially true in this case, where we don't know what role Elon will assume at Twitter, or what will even happen. It's quite a vague poll.
 * As for the actual notability, it does seem dubious to post the results of a Twitter poll to ITN, but if it leads to Elon stepping down from the company entirely, that could be notable for ITN. Either way, there is no way to know what exactly this will lead to, and thus we should wait until after the poll, and after whatever change takes effect in order to make a decision. Though this is a good faith nomination, remember WP:CRYSTAL. We can't predict the future. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing to Oppose, as the nomination mainly addresses the Twitter poll, which in itself isn't notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose First, the Twitter poll itself is not notable. Only the potential outcomes that may result from the completion of the poll. Second, the blurb is at best misleading. The word "referendum" implies that this poll has some sort of official status, when it is in fact just a Twitter poll. Chrisclear (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just another useless nomination by Count Iblis. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no need to be rude, Alsor. We should always assume good faith, and while this nomination wasn't quite notable, we shouldn't disparage and put down others. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Watch this space/wait If a leadership change happens, I believe it would be notable. Also as a note, the time has expired and the Yes vote has prevailed. Musk has not reacted yet as of posting. I likely will likely be offline when something does happen, so I can't change my "vote"/comment on this nomination yet. -TenorTwelve (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - And just what are we going to do?! Call the United Nations if he doesn't adhere to the results of this meaningless poll? Let's wait for something tangible rather than this disincarnate bullshit.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Until we know for sure, and what the implications are (he's implied he might close down Twitter completely which would be newsworthy), we're in the realm of speculation. --M asem (t) 13:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on its face. This is a proposed reshuffling of deck chairs. Ownership, and therefore power over the company, remains the same no matter whether a functionary is named as a titular new "head". BD2412  T 13:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Fijian general election

 * Support - ITN/R, change in government, article is of sufficient quality. Good to go. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And I also support the Altblurb PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable per WP:ITNR, and article quality meets WP:ITNCRIT. Why not?  The Bestagon (previously Quantum XYZ)  ( chat  ) 12:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good and it seems to be up to date. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - ITN/R. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb. ITNR and the article is in good shape. The results have been updated, referencing is good, and there's prose on the outcome in the 'aftermath' section. Seems good to go. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb. Looks good; this is ready to be posted. Vida0007 (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALTBLURB Always a good sign when an election article is such high quality so quickly. Major credit to all involved. Curbon7 (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment please could we phrase this blurb in plain English? Readers aren't necessarily likely to know what a "plurality" is, and sources don't usually use that term. I suspect it just means he got the most votes, right? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We cannot, because...Fijifirst and the opposition coalition are both negotiating with another party to reach a majority, so he is not certain to remain in office. This nom seems premature to me. Joofjoof (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It would still not be inaccurate to say that Fijifirst received the most votes, no matter the outcome of the negotiations, and would be more likely to be understood by most readers. (This has also been raised at ERRORS). Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but could it also be called a Hung parliament ? Joofjoof (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, added blurb 3, new government formed. Blurb should be updated now. BastianMAT (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Blurb 3 is misleading. The blurb indicates that the coalition parties has now formed government when in fact they just agreed to form a coalition government. No government has been formed yet. The Parliament that is yet to be summoned by the President (Section 67) will elect the new PM per section 93 of the Fijian constitution. I think we should hold off for now because the ruling FijiFirst party still has not conceded. (Source). KRtau16 (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sitiveni Rabuka has been elected as Prime Minister. KRtau16 (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wim Henderickx

 * Support Never heard of him before. The article seems to be OK and well referenced. Grimes2 (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) HTMS Sukhothai

 * Support in principle, but no way the target article - as it currently is - is good enough to be on Wikipedia's main page .  The Bestagon (previously Quantum XYZ)  ( chat  ) 14:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Full support now that the article has been improved.  The Bestagon (previously Quantum XYZ)  ( chat  ) 16:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Significant event (ships in general, but particularly military ships, tend to not randomly slip below the waves during peacetime, even in storms), but the article is very minimal and needs some serious improvement. 173.179.105.16 (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on merits, weak support on quality. Unusual event with (probably) substantial loss of life. Apparently this is only the fourth Thai warship to have sunk, ever. The article is quite bare-bones but does just about meet our minimum requirements. There's a disappointing lack of detail, both about the ship and the capsizing. I hope this can be improved while discussion continues; I don't see anything that would prevent it being posted though. Altblurb added. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once properly updated. Warships sinking is a big deal. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * • Support per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment, article has since been significantly expanded (I've added editors to the template above) - Dumelow (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality appears adequate and much improved from the concerns expressed by the Bestagon above. The loss of a naval ship of this size is highly unusual. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support article looks good, pretty significant event I would say? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. A rare and noteworthy ship accident involving the Royal Thai Navy that has been making rounds in world news in the past few hours (the last sinking to occur to their navy was 77 years ago). The article has also been updated, and upon checking, I did not see any sourcing issues. Vida0007 (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - article in good shape, no referencing issues. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting. Feel free to update the image at some point. --Tone 18:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Image not protected yet. Have added it to WP:CMP so that it will be. Mjroots (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Image now protected and added to template. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Argentina wins World Cup

 * An article needs to be nominated and bluelinked. Flibirigit (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Duh. Article's great, as one would expect from a sporting event of this prominence and size. 5.44.170.26 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Support Let's just do it Twa0726 (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, with a preference for the alternative blurb for better formatting and linking .VR talk 18:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until a prose summary is added and unreliable sources are replaced. The article is clearly not ready.  Sounder Bruce  18:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait It's ITN/R, so it doesn't matter what "we said". 2022 FIFA World Cup Final has not yet been updated. Curbon7 (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the main blurb is the format for which we post these types of event, so oppose ALTBLURB. Curbon7 (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry didn't realize there was a format convention.VR talk 18:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries :) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait until 2022 FIFA World Cup Final is expanded. There are very literally empty sections currently. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb over alt, the host country is trivial at this point. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Blurb should also remove the entry from ongoing. - Indefensible (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - no need to wait, finals article has extensive prose. Should be posted immediately. Nfitz (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  as there is no prose currently about the final at 2022 FIFA World Cup Final.—Bagumba (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Striking, given that there is a summary now.—Bagumba (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ​​In association football, the 2022 FIFA World Cup concludes with Argentina defeating France can be used until the final article gets an update. 2A02:2F0B:B400:9600:3896:2CB8:9866:A0D1 (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wiki is not primarily a news site, there is no reason to rush before the article is ready. - Indefensible (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the current Blurb is bad and American biased, we are talking about the biggest sports tournament in the world not a small event that end with a "conclusion" as if no one is interested in it. --<b style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; color:green;">Ibrahim.ID ✪</b> 19:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What alternative blurb would you suggest? Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 19:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * yes I think the alternative blurb is good and neutral, but I suggest the change (FIFA World Cup in Qatar) to (2022 FIFA World Cup) that the most common name. <b style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; color:green;">Ibrahim.ID ✪</b> 19:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How in the world is the blurb at all Americo-centric? Curbon7 (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing this is a dig at the use of "association football". – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, the altblurb might be the American-centric one, as it does not follow MOS:PLURAL per British English: ​Argentina win the FIFA World Cup in Qatar... —Bagumba (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've gone ahead and added a very basic match report (the same one I put together for the main page), which needs expansion and a bit of TLC over-time. Feel free to expand with a bit more info, as previous events have very well written and extensive match reports.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see the cited prose match summary in the finals article. The proposed blurb is standard we are using for sport events for tournaments. Ready to post or am I missing anything? --Tone 19:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Let's just wait until the article is actually completed, then we can do it. --BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article now looks better than it was a few minutes ago, as the details of this (historic) match have already been written in the target article. No sourcing issues too. Vida0007 (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 19:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: Image added. 2600:1700:31BA:9410:54B8:BCAC:8A19:D8F3 (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: It should include that it was only after a penalty shootout after the match ended 3-3 after extensions. Also Kylian Mbappé hat-trick against Argentina is notable.--Gazozlu (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A little too trivia for our purposes. These are both covered in the article itself. Curbon7 (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think adding "in a shoot-out" would be worth it, and says enough. Especially given the rarity of such an event in the final. Nfitz (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Three times in the last 8 editions isn't really rare at all. Fram (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not really about how rare it is, rather it's about how notable it is within the context of the whole match. It is quite an important and notable detail that it went to a penalty shootout and that the match wasn't concluded in regular playing time. Gazozlu (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN has always avoided putting scorelines in sport blurbs. I see no reason to change that. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not about the actual score, its about the fact that they were 'evenly matched' and the game had  to go to penalties in order to force a winner. It's quite different than if Argentina won by actual goals. Gazozlu (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's just a detail though. Some matches are close, others are not close, we only generally say who the winner was though, no other editorialising. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So if I'm getting this right, you want the blurb to be "In association football, the FIFA World Cup concludes with Argentina defeating France in the final in a shootout after the game ended 3-3 AET, despite a hat trick from Kylian Mbappe, while Croatia defeats Morocco, the first African team to reach the semifinals, in third place." Sounds really succinct. -- Kicking222 (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not how you make it succinct. Rather it should include enough information to give a correct picture of the event.
 * It should be, The FIFA World Cup concludes with Argentinas victory over France in a penalty shoot-out. Gazozlu (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Question, Is it possible to add Croatia defeated Morocco to won the third place? <span style="background:white;border:1px black;box-shadow:2px 2px 2px blue;color:black;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px white;border-radius:999px"> B-MIKE - (Talk) 14:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? That would make the blurb far too long for no obvious benefit. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just suggesting just as zh-wiki posted on their ITN, or should I make another nominate about this. <span style="background:white;border:1px black;box-shadow:2px 2px 2px blue;color:black;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px white;border-radius:999px"> B-MIKE - (Talk) 15:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , I can't speak for our friends at zh.wiki as I don't know their standard, but our standard here is considerably strict. It is extremely doubtful that it will pass. Curbon7 (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Morocco's historic achievement at the world cup being the first African country to reach the semis can be its own in-the-news. Gazozlu (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We aren't a ticker tape. It was enough that the event was ongoing.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is more than just a factoid, it was a big deal and became a cultural phenomena. Gazozlu (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the articles should be relatively fresh or expanded, the statement "Morocco being the first African country to reach the WC semis" would be perfect DYK material. But's not groundbreaking news, hence why not ITN. M asem (t) 13:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to nominate a blurb. But FWIW I won't support. IMO the winner of the World Cup gets all the marbles and a mention on Wikipedia's main page. The various runners up get a set of steak knives and a T shirt. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * DYK? What article would that be tied to? 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably Morocco national football team or 2022 FIFA World Cup. But DYK has different eligibility criteria. Recent events don't make an article eligible for DYK, there are other requirements such as: the article has be be newly written, or has to have been expanded 5 times in size, or has to have recently been promoted to "Good Article" status. Gazozlu (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly, that was the point I would have made once I had received an answer from . 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably a good idea to propose an in the news then for Morocco before too much time passes. Gazozlu (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Afghanistan tunnel fire

 * Support - Notable tragedy, though the article needs a lot of work. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Cleaned the article up and added a new section. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment What global significance does this tragedy have? What long-term impact will it have? 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Those aren't necessary for an article to be posted to ITN. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I thought too. So I wonder why the aquarium story got shot down on those terms. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The AquaDom breaking isn't as notable because no people were killed. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But it is unique. Gazozlu (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Conditional support Needs expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but the article still needs to be worked on; it is still marked as a stub as of this writing. Vida0007 (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This might be better in the article about the tunnel itself, since several incidents have happened in it before and are documented there. I can't see much extensive coverage of this type of disaster coming out of Afghanistan to expand the separate article on its own. --M asem (t) 02:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Agree with M asem, but the number of dead makes it a notable tragedy. Alex-h (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support and updated blurb to refresh numbers of victims. Article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I still don't have an answer to my question. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dieter Henrich

 * Support Referenced; philosophical views could possibly use additional detail but above minimum standards of depth for ITN.  Spencer T• C 23:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Satis. Grimes2 (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Mike Hodges

 * Needs ref improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite a few footnote-free paragraphs. Filmography is unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Werner Leich

 * Support Adequate depth of coverage, fully referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 23:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Philippe Tillous-Borde

 * Comment: Philippe_Tillous-Borde needs references, otherwise this is pretty close.  Spencer T• C 23:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Refs on French wiki transferred. - Indefensible (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Drew Griffin

 * Oppose Unfortunately still a stub, but what's there is good. Kafoxe (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Now that it's improved. Kafoxe (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: With more obits released, there may be more citable materials from WP:RS to add to this stubby wikibio and grow it into a start-class article.--PFHLai (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Added a few more items from his career. Is this still a stub or can we upgrade it to start class? - Indefensible (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's too long to be a stub now. Can the Career section be less WP:PROSELINE-ish? --PFHLai (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Made some minor wording adjustments to reduce PROSELINE. - Indefensible (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edits. This wikibio is long enough to qualify with 380+ words. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found at expected spots. Earwig has no more to complain about. This wikibio looks READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Meets minimum standards; I added some additional details to more fully flesh it out.  Spencer T• C 01:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Christian Saulsberry

 * Long enough with 660 words of prose. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found at expected spots. Earwig has no complaints. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Philip Pearlstein

 * Almost there The awards listed need a cite. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * More sources added. - Indefensible (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Good work. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: P-22 (mountain lion)

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. Kind of unusual how much attention this cat received though. - Indefensible (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well-sourced. Wild that this is the top story on my news app. Kafoxe (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the unusual name will attract clicks. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. BD2412  T 04:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

(Needs attention) New Taoiseach in Ireland

 * Support - perhaps Government of the 33rd Dáil should be included as a target article Josey Wales Parley 18:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That might be a better choice, yes PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - why is there a change? I feel like some sort of linked article (akin to the October 2022 United Kingdom government crisis article) or detail explaining what happened would be useful here. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Government is a coalition of parties who agreed to a rotation of the post of Taoiseach. Black Kite (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment To 's points, I think the blurb should be amended to note that this is a "pre-planned" rotation of the premiership, and have introduced alt2 to that effect. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb Change of government has been periodically posted here (the most recent was the 2022 Swiss Federal Council election I think), and the main target articles (Leo Varadkar and Government of the 33rd Dáil) look good too; hence, I do not see any problem with this, although the altblurb looks (and sounds) better. Vida0007 (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs work The target article just has a single sentence. There's nothing about the significance of the change for policies and personnel.  Is he bringing a new team of staff with him?  Cabinet changes?  Official residence?  Foreign reactions?  Nothing. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support with 33rd gov't as the target. As Varadkar's article already covered the agreement, an update to his BLP significant enough to satisfy ITNCRIT would surely violate BALANCE.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support with both articles as targets.  The Bestagon (previously Quantum XYZ)  ( chat  ) 15:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support both articles as target in principle, haven't really looked at either for quality. To GCG's point, Varadkar needs (IMO, anyway) to be a target article since he's the new head of government, intra-article balance notwithstanding. The 33rd government article is also a viable target given that's where the unusual "rotation" aspect comes from. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support but I'll ask again what I asked on the talk page a while back. Why isn't the name of the article "Prime Minister of Ireland?" We don't usually have the name of the head of government in a language other than English for other countries. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ""; probably that I would reckon. Curbon7 (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, It is a change of government, but of course the article could have a title relating to this change. Alex-h (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is there anything pending on this nomination? Ktin (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Lack of adequate prose update to either Government_of_the_33rd_Dáil or Leo_Varadkar.  Spencer T• C 23:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Spencer. Seems like the only update one can say is that LV was appointed the Taoiseach, which seems to be there. That said, @PrecariousWorlds are you able to edit to add a few details? Ktin (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Tagging as needing attention. Still within the timeframe to be posted, does the article need anything else? Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Similar to previous, one article ( Government of the 33rd Dáil) has a 2-sentence update and Varadkar's article has a 1-sentence update. Is there nothing else to add prose-wise?  Spencer T• C 01:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It seems Government of the 33rd Dáil should be the only bolded link, as it details the major government changes. However, it needs to be enhanced to have the clarity that's already at, regarding the coalition agreement to rotate positions.—Bagumba (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elia Alessandrini

 * Weak support Borderline minimal standards in terms of depth of coverage, but sounds like a sudden death before the bulk of his playing career could occur.  Spencer T• C 23:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe this is my wishful thinking, but I'm hoping that the cause of death may become available while this nom is still eligible, providing materials for an additional sentence or two to grow this short wikibio more firmly into a start-class article. --PFHLai (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Long enough, looks fine for RD. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Robert Oppenheimer

 * Weak oppose I feel this is a "bygones-be-bygones" situation notwithstanding the readership increase (though I do wonder how this affects Teller's reputation). This is about a tenth of the importance of, say, the JFK assassination, much less 9/11 or COVID, so I don't know if analogies to revelations about those events decades from now would be useful. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Love our beautiful Manhattan Project articles of course, but this just being a one-line update makes this a no-go news story for me. If a more in-depth analysis was released alongside this and used to update the article, I might feel differently. It doesn't feel particularly major news either. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's good to know that the Manhattan Project articles were appreciated. It was a major project of mine over the last ten years. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is a very cold case. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Historical footnote. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Good faith nom but not really ITN material. Kafoxe (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Jose Maria Sison

 * Oppose on quality. Orange tagged and several unsourced paragraphs. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

AquaDom explosion

 * Support because I can't recall when an event like this happened last, so it seems out of the ordinary.VR talk 18:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT Tragedy doesn't just have to be at the human-scale. The article is updated, though it needs expansion to be holistic, but it seems overall fine for our purposes. I've added an ALT which I think works better. Curbon7 (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The thing destroyed is not significant, nor is the means of its destruction. ITN is not a venue for novelty stories.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Unusual and notable This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per GCG. Insignificant, without encyclopedic value and lacking in global significance. This is not a news journal. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality; would support if the article were in better shape. Article is currently too light on details and history of the structure, which leads to a WP:UNDUE problem that unnecessarily focuses too much of the text on the recent news.  Furthermore, for such a short article, too much of the key information is uncited.  Really needs a lot of work.  If we had a good article, this has been in the news at the level where it would be appropriate for ITN, though.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support pending updates to article Highly unusual event. The Kip (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is currently ITN on the German Wikipedia, perhaps that is an indication of notability. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Am I the only one thinking that it's not an "explosion", but a "burst" or "collapse"? Abductive  (reasoning) 20:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The BBC headlined this as an explosion. The word "rupture" is another option but I don't think they know yet what failed first and how. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The BBC could call a glacier a volcano, but they'd still be wrong. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Loss on an interesting item but does not have a severe effect on the world at large (for example, if it were an aquarium used for scientific study, that might be different and comparable to the loss of Arecibo) --M asem (t) 20:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support International coverage. ArionEstar (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb per Abductive. The article's quality seems okay now that the cn tags are gone. — Coolperson177 <small style="color:#b40808">(message &#124; about me) 23:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - There continues to be this mistaken assumption that items need to be globally significant to be posted. But this is not so. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  02:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Actually seems to have gotten global news media attention; maybe because of the World Cup coming to an end and things generally slowing down with end-of-year holidays and the winter solstice coming up. Maybe it gives us the chance to pretend, briefly, that we live in a world where this is one of the worst things that can happen. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * support. i think using "explosion" is fine; earwitnesses describe being awoken by a loud bang.  the quality of the article appears sufficient now, although i am a little wary of how the disney and dubai incidents are mentioned, as i believe those were leaks rather than catastrophic failures, while the current wording may suggest otherwise.  also, i believe the aquarium in dubai is not the world's largest; the mall it is in was the world's largest mall (by total land area) at the time.  dying (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've adjusted the wording and added a source.  Please feel free to pitch in too if you're familiar with the details. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - unfortunate, but not that big of an aquarium and not that notable. If, say, Osaka Aquarium Kaiyukan's main tank ruptured, then that would be notable.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Very rare event which has since received global coverage. The rupture/explosion section could still be expanded, but the article in general looks good to me. Vida0007 (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Posting items like this would represent a sea change (pun intended) in how ITN operates. But I think it would be a good change. What would actually be lost in posting this? It's an event, in the news, well-covered by an article. We often get long periods where no event meets our strict importance criteria for inclusion, resulting in the front-page ITN section looking embarassingly out of date. --LukeSurlt c 13:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with this. Any change that results in more inclusion rather than less is better for ITN in the long run. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We are not a news ticker, so we shouldn't care about the ITN box being seemingly out of date - we can't make news happen and should not be weakening our standards for inclusion for an arbitrary "freshness" reason. There's a reason we are more focused on stories with large and/or long-reaching effects, that things that are temporary curiousities. M asem (t) 17:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite right, Masem. And this has been repeated so many times... _-_Alsor (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This isn’t a major aquarium. Story has no long term significance. Posting this would encourage more clickbait news stories to be nominated and posted. Thriley (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I feel sorry for the fish, but this is nowhere near globally noteworthy news, other than some trivial event, a curiosity. Bedivere (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Not the level of news we post, much as it's sad for the fish. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Fish will be missed, but this isn't quite ntoable, despite being unusual. Perhaps a better fit for DYK PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, DYK is for newly created articles or articles expanded fivefold, not for events like these. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  20:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , You really need to read Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news. This is not the first time you have this. Curbon7 (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * to be fair, an article about the explosion could be created and it would be DYK-worthy. Bedivere (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Read it. I apologise if I was being patronizing, but I would still oppose this on notability.
 * Perhaps I misunderstand the purpose of both ITN and DYK though, so I will make sure to read up on WP:DYK. Thank you PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support because not only a lot of exotic fish have died but this was a tourist attraction and the news seems to have made the world, one source also claims two humans were injured in the burst, there's also no saying if they will rebuild it this early on. OGWFP (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I think it's worth noting that the article itself notes that this is not the first time a major rupture has occurred in an aquarium of this type, and the article itself is at least 50% composed of prose regarding the failure, with little note about the impact and significance of the aquarium besides that it at one point in time held the record for being the tallest aquarium of it's type (with no note made to suggest whether or not it held the record until it ruptured). DarkSide830 (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITN is not a ticker for tabloid sensationalism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose RIP fish, but we cannot base our criteria on cycle fastness/slowness. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Analysis These opposes do not stand up.
 * The story is not especially tabloid in nature as it has been reported by numerous respectable sources such as the BBC and NYT.
 * We are currently blurbing other explosions and structural failures which seem similar in scale
 * Those other articles such as the landslide and explosion are 100% about those incidents. If the place in question already had an article so that the content about the event is at the 50% level then this demonstrates that the structure was more notable, not less.
 * So, my impression that that the rhetoric is just for show and it's really just personal opinion – classic IDONTLIKEIT. That's the trouble with ITN – it's just a forum for opinions about the news rather than an objective process.
 * Anyway, the good news is that this article has been crushing the posted blurbs when it comes to actual readership. See |AquaDom|2022_Batang_Kali_landslide stats.  ITN gatekeeping fails again.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 11:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The landslides and the Jersey explosion had more support as it had a human death toll.
 * And just because a page is getting more views doesn't mean it's more notable for ITN, otherwise we'd blurb 'Avatar: The Way of Water releases'. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your "analysis" cherry picks facts to suit your argument - like omitting the factor of human fatalities! Please just state your case without insulting the other editors.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the relevance of human fatalities when comparing to events like these? This is an apples-to-oranges comparison. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because those were the main driving factors behind the postings that Andrew is referencing in contrast to this one. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Remember that news sources are trying to fill 24/7 coverage, so just because there's wide coverage of it doesn't mean it has the legs for an enduring story required by NEVENT. That's why we tend to post news that has more concrete impacts. M asem (t) 02:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose, Interesting, but not a notable event. Alex-h (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Very solid article, very much in the global news. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Would consider this notable because the aquarium itself had an article that existed prior to its explosion; good quality article.  Spencer T• C 21:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unusual and unfortunate event but lacks wider significance. The aquarium was purely decorative and its failure only hurt fish (and the hotel's bank balance). This would make a good DYK blurb and is close to the 5 times expansion needed to qualify there. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Does not meet the significance needed to post at ITN. As suggested above DYK may be a better bet.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please one to a decision. 71.125.62.146 (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Sinisa Mihajlovic

 * Oppose Very sad, but a significant amount of unsourced material in the article. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now A warrior in two different ways, and I share the grief being felt in Serbia and Italy today, but this is an unusual article in that it's immensely long, and it's well-sourced in some areas but swathes of unsourced in others. Perhaps the historical editors only wanted to edit the parts about their favourite clubs. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not ready Sad to see him go, but his article is still orange-tagged, and three {cn} tags remain. Vida0007 (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Batang Kali landslide

 * Support - Well referenced Sherenk1 (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - As the nominator says, an unusually lethal incident of a type that is otherwise common. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. SBS6577P (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready to be posted, and I saw no sourcing issues on the article. (Also, RIP to the victims of this landslide.) Vida0007 (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality looks good, news sources are covering the story. Looks good to go!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Per above. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support As stated in the nom, a common occurrence that has been unusually fatal. Curbon7 (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Update - Death toll has risen to 24, and a new image was created by another user. Cheers, gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why no Congolese floods\landslides, but this and the jersey explosion (the latter of which really beats me)? 41.58.242.167 (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It just depends on volunteer activity, if those subjects have articles which meet the quality standards and get supported by the community then it gets posted. - Indefensible (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ayacucho riots/massacre

 * It might make sense to replace the current Ongoing item with a blurb like this, which would also link to the general protests article? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A link to the protests could be placed in the blurb.--WMrapids (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just proposed an alt-blurb for this. It's an option, at least, as we have only just put the protests themselves in ITN. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Significant event and articles look good, just one CN tag in the massacre article to address. Sam Walton (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once the CN tag is cleared. Neutral on removing the Ongoing entry. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I also have the same stance with Genevieve on this: support once the cn tag is gone. This is a major (and tragic) news from Peru after all, and is very worthy for ITN. As for the Ongoing item, remove that only if this particular article gets blurbed. By the way, I moved this to December 15 as it occurred on that day. Vida0007 (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Covered in ongoing - Though this is a terrible event and could probably be posted, maybe it's best to leave it to ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's covered in ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is the purpose of ongoing, and proves why it was a good idea of adding it to ongoing. The issue is that it is a slippery slope: if we post this in tandem with ongoing, then what about if there is (god forbid) another massacre, and another, in the same way we don't every horrible event in the war in Ukraine. Curbon7 (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the Bucha massacre was posted during the Ukraine war placement in ongoing. Yes, the two death tolls in these events are separated widely, but the notability lies with an army openly firing on civilians, not the size of death toll.--WMrapids (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Bucha was far and beyond the exception rather than the rule, and even then it still met significant opposition. Curbon7 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Report from the regional hospital system says that 90% of those injured resulted from gunshot wounds.--WMrapids (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, propose ALT2 per WP:NPOV. The Kip (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Proforma Oppose Highlighted article is already linked on the main page. We shouldn't have two links to the same article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, already in Ongoing and whilst a nasty incident, doesn't appear to be significant enough to override that. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose under this title until it is confirmed that reliable sources do predominantly call this a "massacre"; this is a very loaded term and implies intentional mass murder, which does not appear clear from the article and the sources.  Sandstein   20:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The usage of the word "massacre" does not suggest a mass murder. Reliable sources, such as El País are describing it as a massacre.--WMrapids (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose covered by ongoing, no sign this is a serious event to denote it above ongoing. ‐‐M asem (t) 20:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Sad event but it's already covered in ongoing so I don't believe that we need to blurb this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. Covered by Ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Terrible event, but had been covered in Ongoing. I also have some concerns as well regarding the article which don't look quite adhering to WP:NPOV to me, even as I oppose the ousting of Pedro Castillo. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank J. Shakespeare

 * A drive-by comment: It seems a bit odd to see degrees received after the age of 50 in the "Early life and education" section. Perhaps in the wrong section? Wrong year? Wrong degree? --PFHLai (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are honorary degrees based on a reputable career, early life and education are combined; article is a bit short but I guess it makes sense in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think those were related to education. I've moved that sentence to a new "Awards" section. --PFHLai (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense. Looks good to me. - Indefensible (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Article looks to be in good shape. Sam Walton (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Billie Moore

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Talk:Billie Moore Input, anyone? --PFHLai (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Resolved.  It's the 14th. --PFHLai (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Sakharov prize

 * Support Sakharov Prize is a featured list and Ukraine is in good shape, so good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral – This feels extremely barebones. I find myself wondering if the article should even be a Featured List, as it doesn't go into much detail about the prize and its history. More importantly for ITN, it's only a one-line update, so we wouldn't be directing readers to any further information about this news item. That all being said, I don't know if I could reasonably oppose a FL ITN/R item being posted, so... I just refrain from !voting at all? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Article might need work, but this is ITN/R, so I'd say it's notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per all the above including the supports. ITN/R means significance is assumed; it does not mean there is an imperative to post. An update to either article substantial enough to meet WP:ITNCRIT would likely cause WP:BALANCE issues. Maybe we can thread that needle, but I doubt it.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree on the Oppose here. The past, we've generally used the winner's article for this, as the prize itself is just a listing. The problem is that being given the Ukraine people fighting back against Russia doesn't give us a nice article target for that. If there is a decent target article that is focused on the Ukraine's resistance to Russia that is also in good shape, that might help. --M asem (t) 13:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Stale. This was announced on 19 October .  There was a additional ceremony yesterday, but the actual award is old news. Besides, the nominated article is just a list - there needs to be a prose update somewhere. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: 2022 Brazilian election protests

 * Oppose We cannot be including all the protests that are currently going on in the world in Ongoing. They are commonplace and this one doesn’t seem to have an exceptionality beyond what the protests imply. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Despite nominating this, I actually agree. The only reason why I decided to make this post was because it was brought up below, and I think it's good to get a consensus on this issue. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This entry should be closed if the nomination was never serious, as noted earlier the comparison is not apples-to-apples with the Peruvian article. You should open a section on the project talk page if you want to discuss policy. - Indefensible (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're probably right, my bad. I'm new to ITN, and Wikipedia in general, so I'm just getting used to it. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's okay, we all start somewhere. Good effort & welcome. - Indefensible (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for now. Bolsanaro has conceded, the election results have been officially ratified by the courts, and it doesn't look like the protests aren't really growing. In particular, the "Timeline" section in the article is currently quite thin and does not justify an ongoing posting. If something more substantial develops on the grounds, the issue can be revisited. Nsk92 (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The three last updates to the article cover events that happened on 7 November, 15 November, and 12 December.  With less than one worthwhile thing happening per week, this isn't really being updated at a level that demonstrates that it qualifies as an ongoing item for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This nomination was made for comparison with the December 2022 Peruvian protests, but discussions on policy should generally be done on the talk page. As Jayron32 noted above, there is currently a difference in article quality so the nominations are not apples-to-apples. However, a possible solution is to blurb this similar to the January 6 United States Capitol attack for the storming of the federal police HQ if article quality reaches the blurb requirements, and posting the Peruvian entry to ongoing, so there would be no conflict between them. - Indefensible (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Updates seem to have slowed down. If the article can be maintained with more frequent updates than maybe this could be posted. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * •Oppose per above. Editor 5426387 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now - This is still an unfolding situation, but there's a good chance it will unfold into a damp squib. That said, we should keep an eye on it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bolsonaro conceded and protests are dying down at this point. This doesn't rise to the level of Peru or even Stop the Steal. Curbon7 (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: Peruvian protests & political crisis

 * Comment I'm not sure if this has more, less, or equal merit as 2022 Brazilian election protests to be in ongoing.—Bagumba (talk) 08:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The answer to that would be irrelevant to this discussion. If you want some other article's status in ongoing changed, start a new discussion.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It was only a comment, and neutral at that. The essay you linked also reads: While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. —Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The functional part of that sentence is ...may form part of a cogent argument. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article is in decent shape, seems to be being actively updated, most recent events covered by the article are less than 48 hours old. Looks to check all of the boxed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Mixed - I feel like for this to be in ongoing, we also need to address other protests going on, like the Brazilian election which Bagumba brought up. Not too sure if I'm perfectly honest. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose We cannot be including all the protests that are currently going on in the world in Ongoing. They are commonplace and this one doesn’t seem to have an exceptionality beyond what the protests imply. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, posting something, although the header would probably need to be reworded. The main underlying event here is an ongoing Peruvian constitutional crisis, which is much bigger than the protests. Nsk92 (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment this is the third protest in Peru over the past year. Thus seems like a case where protests happen at a drop of a hat, and we'd need a strong reason to post one over the other. --M asem (t) 17:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A good metric to use to decide if something is worth posting is that there is evidence, as can be found in reliable sources, that it is significant, given the amount of attention that reliable sources give to it. If we did anything other than that, then we're all just using our own, very narrow, individual perspective, which isn't that great of a way to operate when dealing with a website designed to be used all over the world.  Instead of making the decision based only on what we think (which is mostly based on what we may personally care about or what we are exposed to in each of our own very tiny corners of the world), instead we should strive to assess these things by looking at reliable sources and assessing whether or not the topic is being covered or not.  I live no where near Peru, and I have no vested interest in what goes on there, so my own personal feelings would necessarily skew towards not thinking this was significant.  I am not a reliable source, however.  I can assess whether this is a major news event by seeing what major news sources are doing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Except, of course, is when the mass media go crazy over something we consider routine. M asem (t) 19:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Or to add why we do not use frequency of coverage of a story or where the story is published (like front page verse elsewhere) as metrics for UTN consideration. M asem (t) 19:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But conversely the subject may be encyclopedic and notable enough for visibility, what may need to change is Wikipedia's format and space for such coverage rather than imposing artificial limitations, as well as potential debiasing in the community which prevents such entries from being included. - Indefensible (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, many forget that we are not a newspaper, and our coverage of news should be after the point a news event is clearly going to have an enduring impact. We have far too many articles being created on breaking news without consideration of long term factors. M asem (t) 21:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with not being a newspaper, the ongoing political crisis of a sizable country which this is a part of is certainly encyclopedic and deserves coverage. National Ignition Facility's current blurb seems far more problematic. - Indefensible (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why should my consideration make a difference? What I "consider" is based on my own very narrow view of the world.  Wikipedia does not operate on personal "considerations" it operates on evidence.  My "consideration" is not evidence.  It's just my own feelings.  It has no bearing on what should or should not happen.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Still very much in the news, fairly big, and tensions are still high. I think these protests are significant above the level that most protests are and thus worthy of posting. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Things are becoming notably more severe as a national state of emergency was declared and some constitutional rights of an entire nation have been removed.--WMrapids (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Sam Walton (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nihal Nelson

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This wikibio would probably benefit from more copyediting. Anyone interested? --PFHLai (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @PFHLai I've given the article a copyedit. It looks good enough to me now. Sam Walton (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Samwalton9. --PFHLai (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stephen "tWitch" Boss

 * Comment Article is OK but (yes, you know what's coming) filmography is not sourced. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment As mentioned by Black Kite, the filmography and awards sections need references. As for the prose though, that already looks good. I have also moved this to December 13 because like Adrian Shooter below, he actually died on the 13th but was only reported today (14th). Vida0007 (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: Changing my stance to support as the sourcing issues have been addressed. RIP to him, what a huge loss to the entertainment industry. Vida0007 (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support The article has official death date sources. PerryPerryD  Talk To Me 19:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Update - Article should be fully sourced now, references added to Filmography and Awards. --2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:480D:BA9B:695E:ECE5 (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Famous with decent notoriety. All Categories seem properly and verifiably sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kybrion (talk • contribs) 05:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks well sourced and thorough. --Engineerchange (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was doing random spot checks on the footnotes and encountered sourcing issues multiple times. I have attempted to fix what I found and added a few {cn} tags (may need more?). Perhaps this wikibio could use more thorough vetting by someone familiar with the subject before the wikilink goes on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good now. Pinging for any objections. DatGuyTalkContribs 11:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I returned to this wikibio to continue with the random spot checks of REFs and ran into more problematic footnotes on my first two random spots. I have put in new {fv} and {cspan} tags at the two spots. I'm not sure if I want to continue. --PFHLai (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - More new references have been added. This should be sorted now. Can it be posted? --2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:E425:D648:8A6B:6047 (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Referencing issues seem to have been fixed.  Spencer T• C 21:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Adrian Shooter

 * Support -- chris_j_wood (talk)
 * Support There's one "clarification needed" tag but generally the article looks to be well-sourced and well-written. Vida0007 (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Mjroots (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose One-sentence lead needs expansion.—Bagumba (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. The intro got expanded. --PFHLai (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Miguel Barbosa Huerta

 * Support Looks good enough. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not opposing but… It would be useful to know more about what he did as governor. Too little is narrated about his gubernatorial career. There is almost more about his death and succession. It doesn’t seem to me to be a suitable article for MP at this time. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd love to find more myself. Lots of articles are being written about his death, but there are no critical appraisals of the state administration. (For a few reasons, cultural and probably coziness with the state government's ad budget.) Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 18:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Look now: I've beefed up this area. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 18:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool! Thanks for updating Sammi. _-_Alsor (talk)
 * Support Article now covers the governorship sufficiently. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks good enough now. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 10:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Abigail Kawānanakoa

 * Support Article is adequately referenced and meets the criteria for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support See no reason not to. Evan224 (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support All criteria is met and the death is significant in Hawai'i. TansoShoshen (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The last Hawaiian princess has died. Though I think other members of the family are still alive. I am open to a blurb. -TenorTwelve (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Sam Walton (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 Artsakh Blockade

 * Article has a couple banners to sort out currently, although not sure if they are valid issues. - Indefensible (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The deletion discussion seems to be heading to a speedy keep, so I'm sure that won't be an issue here. I am seeing that this subject hasn't been covered yet by any of the major sources we tend to expect here. I don't know what the lack of western-European or American coverage means for this item. If it's covered more in non-Caucasus-related publications, that would make it a much more comfortable item for our ITN. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat )
 * Tentative support - Informally, I'm seeing Anglophone journalists familiar with the situation describing this as very signficant and not getting the attention that it arguably deserves in English-language media. Unfortunately, I don't speak a word of any of the relevant languages, so I haven't been able to find appropriate sources. In my view, both the article and this nomination urgently need expert attention, which I am unable to provide. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment An AfD nomination for this currently exists, but it seems that the building consensus on that nomination is to keep the article. As for the Artsakh blockade article itself, I have seen no sourcing issues even if the prose looks a bit short to me. Vida0007 (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Tentative Support The AfD has since been closed as a WP:SNOW keep. This is arguably the most significant escalation in the region since the 2020 conflict. With that said, I cannot WP:V some of the sources as I know very little about the Armenian media landscape (and do not myself speak Armenian). It is hard to tell what is a WP:RS due to my lack of familiarity, so I feel uncomfortable with a full fledged !support. If someone with more expertise in the region can confirm the reliability of some of the sources or can provide known WP:RS to cover it, I would fully support posting it. <b style="color: #ea5a5a;">Tartar</b>Torte 20:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Are there any updates to the story? Sounds like gas access is restored, and Azerbaijan is reporting that traffic has been restored (unclear if true but there doesn't seem to be an indication in the article that this claim is contested).  Spencer T• C 21:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Stuart Margolin

 * Filmography is unsourced. The "Other" section is orange-tagged for {one source}. There are also 10+ {cn} across the rest of the prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Mike Leach

 * Support. The article meets the quality standards for posting.
 * — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Quite a few footnote-free paragraphs and bullet-points. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Two sections (Coaching tree & Achievements) are orange-tagged for lack of citations. Two sections (2021 & 2022 seasons) are orange-tagged for lack of materials. There are also a handful of {cn} tags in the prose above the two empty sections. --PFHLai (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

(closed) The Boy in the Box identified

 * Note this was announced on Dec 8. --M asem (t) 23:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ice-cold case. Great for his family to get closure if they're still alive, but otherwise it's a singular murder case from the 1960s. Juxlos (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Juxlos. Outside of maybe an identification of the Zodiac Killer or Jack the Ripper, I don't see any cold case as being worthy of ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * OpposeGood faith nomination, but not what ITN is meant for.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mirosław Hermaszewski

 * • Support - Notable death of a prominent and decorated Polish figure. Article is very well-referenced and written. JumbledPasta (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, was first and only Polish person to make it to space. Would be nice to see. --Ouro (blah blah) 03:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support great article. Also there is a cracking photo of him in astronaut gear, I'm in no way suggesting a blurb, but just a photo maybe worth considering? Added image to nomination. Abcmaxx (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Have we ever put a photo of an RD up without a blurb? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, infrequently. Curbon7 (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

(closed) Arrest of suspect in Pan Am Flight 103 bombing

 * Wait We typically post convictions, not arrests. But if he is in fact convicted, and assuming article quality is up to scratch, I'd likely support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait - Per Ad Orientem. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose We don't post arrests of suspects. HiLo48 (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per HiLo. If this man is convicted, it would be an ITNR-worthy decision. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose We may post the sentencing, I think that would be of ITN interest, but not arrest. And especially not this one, which doesn't feel all too important to me: the incident was a long time ago; it's not like this arrest reveals a suspect, just means he's been found; and he is accused of manufacturing the bomb, i.e. one of many involved in the conspiracy, not the sole perpetrator. Wasn't there one Lockerbie bomber who has already been found guilty, served his sentence, been released, and died, in the years since it happened. Kingsif (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait We should wait until he's been sentenced. In my opinion, it is notable enough, as after all, it was the largest terrorist attack in the UK. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Corruption in EU parliament

 * Needs work The wave of arrests seems similar to the German plot which we are currently blurbing. But we need an article about the corruption scandal rather than a focus on particular BLPs. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd perhaps support this if a clear link is made to the FIFA World Cup or anything else achieved through corruption. Otherwise, an MEP accused for corruption without further details isn't plausible enough.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Italian MEP Dino Giarrusso said he and many other legislators in Brussels had been approached by Qatari officials numerous times since 2019. “They were hoping to improve the country’s reputation especially in the run-up to the Fifa World Cup”" FT Andrew🐉(talk) 12:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Update I've started a draft article about the matter: Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament Andrew🐉(talk) 11:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Tentative support - But it needs a better blurb. 'Accused for corruption charges' is not idiomatic English; if the arrests are the substantive legal action, they should be the focus. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP? - While I think the topic is certainly ITN blurb worthy, have we suddenly forgotten there's some almighty big BLP issue here. Accusation, arrest, and charges are not conviction. Since when do we post someone's being accused of a crime on the main page when there's not even been a trial yet?!? -- KTC (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The German plot was just posted on the basis of arrests rather than convictions. To minimise BLP issues, we can blurb such mass arrests in a general way rather than naming names. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose a rather run-of-the-mill corruption scheme versus a (albeit ludicrous) plot to overthrow the German government doesn't seem comparable in my opinion. But even if this is posted, as mentioned above, remove the name(s) from the blurb to avoid BLP issues. YD407OTZ (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support article is in OK shape and the news is covering this.  Oppose current blurb as a trainwreck, however, someone is going to have to do better than that!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support on principle, though oppose current blurb. DecafPotato (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree a better blurb can be found. Events are evolving quickly though. In a few hours we had a new article and in a few more probably also a new name. Something like: A Vice President of the Parliament was dismissed and arrested after bags full of cash were found in her apartment. We don't know though with certainty how much it was.
 * Her father was found with a suitcase full of cash, which then sparked the raids.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, however oppose blurb Article seems to be in solid shape and being improved compared to when I read it a couple hours ago. I have to say though, the current blurb seems really clunky, so on that front, we should have a better one. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment for blurb: There are currently eight people arrested according to the Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament article. Jo Jc Jo Talk💬Edits📝 19:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  'Weak Oppose ' It's a high profile case, so this is a close call. But our normal practice is to post convictions vice arrests. That said I can understand the argument for posting given who we are talking about and if TFG is ever indicted, I'd probably support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * When there are mass arrests of multiple high-profile people by multiple authorities, as in this case, then the trials are unlikely to conclude in a simultaneous and tidy way. This is therefore our only opportunity. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Moving to weak support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is more that there are heavy indications that there existed corruption in the European Parliament. That a president of the EU parliament has to come back from vacations to personally observe a raid on the vice-president in which bags full of cash were found...Corruption in the highest levels in the EU parliament is the issue, the arrests are just a by-product. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like this misses the point. The point is: what if the trials result in acquittal? Banedon (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Significant news. There is a "named reference "FT" was defined multiple times with different content" error but otherwise the article looks good. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, It is important news and article looks good. Alex-h (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Several members of the European Parliament being arrested for corruption for reasons involving alleged bribery by a sovereign state is something of international importance. The article quality is fine enough to post at the moment. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support significant on several levels, and the biggest scandal in the EP to date. Yakikaki (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The sheer breadth of the scandal warrants inclusion with both the number of implicated parties and geographical interest. It is by far the biggest political news from European Politics since 1992. I would strongly support the inclusion of the article on the scandal and not support the article specifically relating to Kaili.  Jo Jc Jo Talk💬Edits📝  — Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Sam Walton (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Has it been confirmed that Qatar is the instigator of this corruption? There is a mention of Morocco in the article too. - Indefensible (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose don't we only post convictions? Banedon (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull, the rule here is to only post convictions. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't pull - The 'convictions only' rule (which is an informal guideline at best) is generally used to oppose proposals to post the beginnings of specific individuals' trials. Mass arrests and the like certainly do get posted - we posted the German coup plot arrests, to take a very recent example. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with this argument. A mass arrest of political figures is independently important. Seeing as we're not even listing any names in the blurb or lede section of the article, the BLP issues aren't the same as for "[celebrity] was arrested for [sexual misconduct]"-style news stories (for example). ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether the article meets WP:N, the issue is whether WP:ITN should highlight anything short of a finding of guilty by a court of law. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Pre-announcement comments

 * Wait They are said to be announcing this week/tomorrow, which appears to include the publication of a peer-reviewed paper that supports this. We do want to make sure that there is a peer-reviewed source behind this, as that's what we'll need to properly update the article. --M asem (t) 05:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Blurb needs to be simplified somewhat, a bit too convoluted at the moment. Curbon7 (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Look at this wording in the article.... "Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's National Ignition Facility had achieved a net energy gain from a fusion reaction, according to three unnamed sources with alleged knowledge of experiments conducted there". (My bolding.) That's simply not good enough for a topic as controversial as this one. HiLo48 (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Waitsupport in principle, it would be groundbreaking news for the world, but I do not find it in any website yet without a paywall.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is obviously not the first net-gain nuclear fusion reaction as H-bombs achieved this in a big way years ago. Anyway, there was some reporting from the National Ignition Facility in early November – see ; .  If that's what's being talked about then it's stale. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess you could technically charge a battery with a nuclear blast, but 1) I would rather doubt that anyone has ever gotten much usable energy out of a nuclear blast, and 2) that's a silly comparison :p ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * An H-bomb usually uses a focused A-bomb to compress a capsule and cause it to ignite. The Livermore experiments now use hundreds of lasers but it's much the same idea.  Use of H-bombs for power generation and other civilian purposes was explored years ago – see Peaceful nuclear explosion, Project PACER and Project Gnome.  So, the fundamental science has been done.  It's now a matter of practical engineering and economics.  Don't hold your breath... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Doing it with lasers is closer to practical wind/solar/geothermal/hydro/fission/etc/grid energy storage replacements than doing it with H-bombs. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait - Per Masem. This definitely needs to be posted though, groundbreaking news. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait per Masem's comment above. I support blurbing this one but the official announcement (including the peer-reviewed paper) should be released first. Vida0007 (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait and add of course. I wanted to add this suggestion myself. Per Masem, the blurb needs to be backed up by a relevant piece in the article, which should be backed up by a suitable source. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC) Changing to add as the breakthrough was announced during the press conference. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The initial reports appear to be overselling the actual achievement. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Still wait - Until the actual press conference, which I believe is today. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Post-announcement comments
I'm late to this but Financial Times appears to have broken it, The New York Times has repeated the story, and both Politico and CNN may have independently confirmed from other sources now. I've added sources to National Ignition Facility for inspection. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we ought to consider this item reopened. Most of the people who participated at this ITN were asking to wait, rather than opposing outright, contrary to Kiril's closure rationale. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  12:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My closure rationale was "no consensus to post at this time", which clearly reflects the pile-up of wait votes, not that there was any outright opposition. I had it in mind that the nomination should be re-opened and just wanted to prevent an overflow of further wait votes.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait for the peer-reviewed paper. This appears to have been a leak or embargo breach, not an official announcement. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: there's now been an official announcement, but still no paper (peer-reviewed or otherwise). I'm kinda torn on this - it's big news if true, but a peer-reviewed paper should be the bare minimum to consider a science story. I wonder if the leak forced them to make a premature announcement before the paper is ready... I'm still inclined to wait until the evidence is presented to the scientific community in a peer-reviewed paper. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the fusion power article is far too broad to be the bold link, and has only two sentences of update. National Ignition Facility would be a better target, which at least has a short section on the new results. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Now Oppose. Here is the presser from DOE . The experiment they are raving on about took place only on Dec 5, and there is no sign of a peer review paper or collaboration. I do not expect the national labs to be faking their result but we really do need a paper with peer review to affirm. --M asem (t) 15:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * im sorry, but why do we need a peer review paper for a world shattering news announcement? yes, we need peer review to confirm the science of this. it may well be false. but the CLAIM is highly notable, esp. since we are way past the dark days when everyone would just make wild claims about fusion. this is real science now. the announcement itself is highly notable. 50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been replication if the results, nor other confirmations expected fir such a significant result. News media are not scientific experts. M asem (t) 17:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment At the initial phase of the press event DoE said outside experts evaluated the results, which is part of the reason to delay till today for announcing the December 5 experiment. Not sure who exactly it was doing the review. Probably more coming at the panel discussion. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support as a groundbreaking scientific breakthrough, which is Wikipedia and ITN's wheelhouse, plus the topic's coverage in front-page stories from some of the largest news outlets in the world. That ought to be enough for a section titled "in the news" and not "in the scientific literature". Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to be ground-breaking as, per the PR, they've been working on this approach for 60 years. Getting to break-even point isn't a big achievement as every existing power system does better than that -- just use a match to light a pile of sticks, for example.  What's needed for success is that the TCO is better than rival systems.  This is why H-bomb fusion power was not pursued – see Project PACER. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Moreover, from what's being said, it seems that the claim of break-even is just based on the laser energy hitting the target. It actually takes a lot more energy to power the lasers than you get out and so this is phoney accounting. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Aren't they diode lasers? Those are a lot more efficient than earlier lasers. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * According to Anatomy of a NIF shot, it takes 400 million joules of electrical energy to deliver 2 million joules of laser energy to the target. You then get about 2.5 million joules back from the fusion.  So, spend 400 million to get 2.5 million.  Do the math. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Rome wasn't built in a day. Okay I checked they aren't diode lasers but if LEDs keep getting x times better every decade give it a few decades. Remember how big, dim and red they were in the 1970s or 80s and now they're efficient and bright enough for streetlights and artificial sunlight and small and cheap enough to fit tens of millions on a smartphone and come in all colors from UV to infrared? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, but I would rather see National Ignition Facility mentioned because of the issues banner displayed in Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 15:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support with main article being National Ignition Facility. this is one of those events that people will consider for renumbering of years, ie BF/Before Fusion, AF/After Fusion. Mercurywoodrose not logged in.50.193.19.66 (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I created a new ITN proposal box based on this support. Hope this doesn't mess up process. Refactor if required... ☆ Bri (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  The DoE press-release is quite nauseating in that it credits a long list of politicians and administrators but doesn't name the scientists and technicians who actually devised and conducted the experiment in question. And, as it's just a glory-stealing bit of PR with no independent confirmation, it's not a reliable source. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do the literally dozens of reliable news articles, plenty of which aren't based on just the press release, not count? :-) Also, noting that you already opposed once above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The news media is not reliable when it's just recycling a press-release. See churnalism and WP:PRSOURCE.  As for this discussion, this seems to be a formal part II in which we respond to the further details, such as they are. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been.standard practice for us at ITN to make sure a scientific breakthrough is accompanied by a peer review publication to assure there is some oversight of the science. A massive press conference and news cover does not make up for that. M asem (t) 16:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * we wont get full independent confirmation, as details of the techniques are highly classified. i would suggest that we assume multiple layers of internal review and bureacracy making this announcement unvarnished truth at core. the backlash to the DOE/LLL would be absurd if they messed this up. this is THE holy grail of energy generation.Mercurywoodrose 50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the altblurb which helps set the record straight per OMUnicorn's good point below. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on significance. It's being covered very widely by reliable sources around the world, therefore it's in the news. I'll trust the editorial judgement of the world's news media over the lay opinions of the editors above. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The news media routinely over-hypes scientific papers. For example, see "Major breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy".  That's from the BBC -- a reliable source, right?  But then notice that it's from back in February about another grand claim from a different lab.  I noticed that at the time and decided that it didn't amount to anything. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * They're ramping up, give them some credit. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "" Hear, hear. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a reason we have SCIRS alongside MEDRS. If a major medical reported a breakthrough in treating cancer, covered widely by the media but not yet reported in a medical journal, we would not include that in ITN due to the MEDRS issue. Same can be said for other scientific breakthroughs. M asem (t) 19:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * MEDRS is a specially defined policy and not what we're discussing here! Very simply, the largest news outlets in the world are publishing stories about this, and this section is named "in the news." If the coverage were substantially less, as it is for many 'run of the mill' discoveries, I'd of course be open to reevaluating based on the strength of the sources. We do similar things for all articles on Wikipedia. But... this isn't run of the mill. 04:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Probably one of the most important scientific achievements this century. Considerable news coverage, with a lot of excitement about it yesterday even before the announcement. Any issues with the DOE press release are imo fixed by independent coverage by other sources. For example, the NYTimes interviews other scientists involved in the project, provides context, and puts things in perspective. No reason to doubt this, and its very exciting. Plus the NIF and fusion power articles are pretty good and it would be nice to highlight them. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 19:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The NYT report confirms that this is not actually a break-even result, "Although the latest experiment produced a net energy gain compared to the energy of the 2.05 megajoules in the incoming laser beams, NIF needed to pull 300 megajoules of energy from the electrical grid in order to generate the brief laser pulse." It's also interesting that fusion power is not what these giant lasers are for, "The main purpose of the National Ignition Facility is to conduct experiments to help the United States maintain its nuclear weapons." Andrew🐉(talk) 19:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support given that this is making headline news (thus, ITN) and appears to be as momentous a breakthrough as is claimed. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  19:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - Massive significance. For a world currently in an energy crisis, and facing climate change, this is a major breakthrough and story. It is literally in the news. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Or it might be, and the media and politicians have got overexcited. HiLo48 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose This an area of science that has historically been full of bullshit. We cannot know yet whether this is just another example. We need certainty. HiLo48 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Um this is the United States Department of Energy, not User:Abd. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I really don't care. I won't believe this until five years have passed and it's been replicated a dozen times all over the world. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's some FA-class Wiki-shade right there. Kurtis (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * but only the og's know it ;) <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - yes this is not a peer-reviewed article, but this is in the news, and right now this is news, and widely covered news. Its on the front page of nearly every major news website out there. This is a huge deal, and right now is when it is news. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Massive news that hopefully encourages global leaders to rethink the merits of nuclear energy. As per above, the lack of a peer-reviewed source is a valid argument but this is indeed in the news right now. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Perspective Here's a good article in The Atlantic which gives the history of this lab making ambitious promises, failing to achieve them and then claiming similar breakthroughs by using creative accounting. It cites a story from 2014 in which the lab also claimed "fuel gains of greater than 1".  Fool me once... Andrew🐉(talk) 21:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? A. this article was before the announcement, and before interviewing outside experts. B. has nothing to do with our criteria for posting to ITN. Nearly all of your comments have been contradicted by any number of policies and guidelines, most notably WP:OR, and should be ignored by a closer. As an editor wrote above, I'll trust the editorial judgement of the world's news media over the lay opinions of the editors above. That is, in addition to being on point in this discussion, also in fact Wikipedia policy. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The author of the Atlantic article seems well informed because he's written a book about the history of this field: Sun in a Bottle: The Strange History of Fusion and the Science of Wishful Thinking. So, he's an independent expert. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well informed enough to note, in the article, that the entire premise of the article is not yet clear. (When this story went to press, neither the Livermore lab nor the Department of Energy had responded to requests for comment.). The multiple sources from after the announcement note that the premise was in fact incorrect, and that independent experts have agreed with the DoE's statement on both the result and the significance. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've read the other reports and the significance seems to be not that this is a practical method of power generation but that they have achieved "ignition" – the state in which fusion is occurring at the intensity found in an H-bomb. That's the main purpose of National Ignition Facility -- to test and validate the ignition of US nuclear weapons.  This has been an existential issue for the lab, whose future was in doubt after the cold war ended and that's why they have been so anxious to get a result.  The challenge is presenting this accurately in a blurb.  And there's still the issue of peer-review as: "The findings have not been peer reviewed". Andrew🐉(talk) 23:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support posting, oppose proposed blurb the current blurb is too verbose and doesn't make it clear that this is the first time a net energy gain has been achieved 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:A4BA:7897:37CE:688C (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You can propose alternate blurbs by editing the box's,   etc. parameters. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, I created the altblurb which has now been posted: "The US National Ignition Facility (pictured) announces that it has achieved fusion ignition." Andrew🐉(talk) 17:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per The_ed17 Shanes (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A significant breakthrough that has gotten significant coverage. Surprised it's not up already. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not energy generation. Although an important scientific breakthrough, the actual claim being made here is that the heat energy out of the fuel was 50% greater than the optical energy absorbed by the pellet. The lasers themselves are only on the order of 1% efficient, and nonetheless the facility has no means of capturing the power anyway. &#091;osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 05:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Optical energy absorbed (not i.e. reflected) by the pellet was one of the previous milestones. This is 1.5 times the power of the laser light and charging the laser took a lot more than that. The symmetry required seems pretty hard, like the explosive lenses of post-Hiroshima atomic bombs. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the more I read about it, the more I am convinced that the reason for the announcement is to secure future financial support for the project. Which in turn it is aimed for Stockpile stewardship rather than energy generation. Also, the ratio Q (E generated vs E needed) taking account the 400 MJ to power up the lasers, gives a Q~0.01 far from the 0.7 record of the JET tokamak (source). So, not really breakthrough news, just PR for a simbolic milestone. Alexcalamaro (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Per osunpokeh and Alexcalamaro. RAN1 (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb: It's a major breakthrough, just not in power generation. RAN1 (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. RS newspapers are heralding it as a major breakthrough, so it's in the news and qualifies, whatever individual Wikipedians might think about it. That said, though, the article quality is poor at the moment, a lot of missing citations, so the discussion is probably moot anyway. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support altblurb - Lay media has a poor track record of accurately conveying science information, but it is undoubtedly in the news. Altblurb is clearer and more accurate than the original blurb.  I have concerns with the accuracy of news reports, and thus the accuracy of our article which is based on them.  However, I feel readers may come to us expecting to find clarity given the hype in the news, and so it is worth running. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 14:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Atlblurb is fine. The event is widely covered by the RS and is widely characterized by the RS as a breakthrough. That should be good enough for us. Nsk92 (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted altblurb. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 17:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull regardless of my stance on this, it had been pointed out that the NIF article was not ready to post with cb tags and unsourced paragraphs. --M asem (t) 17:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My goodness you've got guts. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  18:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support&mdash;"The power of the sun... in the palm of my hand." Kurtis (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment - I checked the NIF article and three cn tags remain there (although personally it already looks good to me). And while I mentioned the peer-reviewed article in the pre-announcement sub-section, I concur with Nableezy that this has already become major news, which is basically the essence of ITN. Vida0007 (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support This is something which is being covered at a sufficient level to indicate that people are hearing about it outside of Wikipedia, so that clears the significance hurdle. The article is sufficient quality; yes there are a small number of cn tags, but on the balance the article is very well referenced, and the relevant information is scrupulously balanced.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite confused here. The main action on this is just a link to an article mostly about the facility, the only mention of the hook phrase "fusion ignition" on the entire article is in a caption, the section about it is called Breakeven, which the fusion ignition article linked calls out in the lead that it should not be confused with "breakeven". This sounds like an important scientific achievement, but the article seems to woefully under represent this. — xaosflux  Talk 20:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull - obviously. The NIF article is not the correct one to post, it's fusion power that has the update in it, as per the nomination above. And in any case, the NIF article is astoundingly unreferenced. Does anybody even bother checking quality before posting these days? Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Addition - as of now there are 23 citation needed tags in the article that I've spotted, plus the "ICF program, 1970s" section has two entirely uncited paragraphs. has been reverting my addition of those tags, noting that the same material is already cited in a child article, but as far as I'm aware that's never been a substitute for having citations present in the actual page linked from the main page. As such, this still needs to be pulled even if the citation needed tags are removed again. Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull how is getting 3 Mjoules from 400 MJ news? Also it is reached in a not desirable configuration. This is an example of news clickbait.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is ITN worthy. But PULL. This article is embarrassing! --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull - As much as I would support this for ITN, these articles are bad and should be pulled from main page. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I think re-targeting so that fusion power is the bold link is much wiser at the moment; this is the main article of concern to the blurb in my view, and the article needs considerably less citation work than the NIF article. Curbon7 (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, the fusion power article has about 40 paragraphs which have no citation or a cn. If it was tag bombed in the same way, it would look worse. It's a larger and more general topic and so would be a lot more work to perfect. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , I put the wrong link, I meant to link to Fusion ignition. Curbon7 (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The fusion ignition article needs work too. For example, it explains in detail that NIF achieved ignition on August 8: "the National Ignition Facility claimed to have triggered ignition in the laboratory on Sunday, August 8th, 2021 for the first time in the over 60-year history of the ICF program. ... In August 2022, the results of the experiment were confirmed in three peer-reviewed papers."  This all sounds great but this latest ballyho is about a different shot which took place on December 5.  So what happened on August 8 and was that ignition or wasn't it?  The article doesn't say.  The trouble is that this lab has a long history of claiming such successes and unpicking the details is not simple.  And getting the date right is just the start.  There's also the technical detail and the article doesn't have much.  The bigger articles have a lot more detail with hundreds of citations but then get shot down for not being perfect.  You can't win. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * August was 1.8 megajoules of laser light in and 1.37 megajoules of fusion out. December was 2.05 megajoules of lasers in and like 3 megajoules out. It's not that complicated. In both cases it takes hundreds of megajoules of electricity to recharge the lasers (enough to run a Tesla about 400 miles) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Amending previous "support" vote to be a pull per above. Article is not in good shape and the blurb chosen does not target a satisfactory article. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've pulled the article over article quality / referencing concerns.  Schwede 66  00:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Proposed another alt, with the target fusion ignition which also has the update it in it. Also dealt with the concerns at ERRORS on who announced what. So restore with alt2. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose fusion ignition might just about be OK, given that the statement by the US energy secretary explicitly mentioned that term, although it's a rather short article and the detail is not great there. More importantly, even that article is lacking citations in places. I'd still prefer fusion power, but might acquiesce to fusion ignition if it's expanded a little and cites sorted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the blurb would need to be clarified a little. "Achieving fusion ignition" is not a new development, that has happened in hydrogen bombs before, as I understand it. The breakthrough here (as I understand it) is that fusion ignition has been achieved in a controlled environment, without the use of ignition through nuclear fission, and in a manner that releases more energy than is put in. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment the cn tags should have been taken care of now. Some voters here might want to chip in to the article instead of writing paragraphs here.  2A02:2F0B:B400:9600:6109:2748:4A01:5EE4 (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Which article are you talking about? Another good article to put into the hat is Fusion energy gain factor which explains Q.  That's not the mysterious QAnon but is a key number in this field.  Andrew🐉(talk) 09:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Checking, I see that it's the National Ignition Facility article which has been worked on by IP 2A02 and others to eliminate every cn. So, now that's done, Schwede66 should please revert. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment even if the article gets fixed this is not news. 1) it creates 3 megajoules from 300-400 from the grid (it is just inside the system that it accounts to 2 megajoules). 2) it is not a scalable approach, tokamaks are considered better by the community 3) many scientists are writing disclaimers. Did the "creation of a black hole" by Google made it to Wikipedia front page too? I do not think so.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep pulled unless someone can explain why an experiment that created a gain of 1.5MJ but pulled 300MJ+ from external sources in order to do it is going to change the future of energy generation. Black Kite (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're kinda missing the point. The evidence that something is being covered by reliable news sources is that it is being covered by reliable news sources.  That doesn't go away because you quote random facts about the story and then act incredulous.  Scoffing at things says nothing about the thing, it only says something about you.  The thing in question is being covered by reliable news sources in a manner that indicates it is significant.  That doesn't go away because you have an attitude of scorn about it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * AGF much? It was a genuine question and I wasn't scoffing at it at all, I totally understand why the theory is important, but was asking a genuine question as to how it is important in practice if it uses so much power. The latter is far more newsworthy than the former.   Black Kite (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not really a matter for this forum. What makes something newsworthy is that news found it worthy.  That's something that can be established via looking for evidence, and doesn't require anyone to know anything about the technical details you keep going on about.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are laser-emitting diodes (LEDs) much more efficient than this but presumably they're not able to dump 2.05 megajoules (half kilowatt-hour) of UV so quickly. Like such a tiny fraction of a microsecond it's momentarily 500,000,000,000,000 watts which is c.200 times average world electricity production and almost 100 times every power plant, solar cell etc on Earth running at 100%. During their many years of existence all LED specs improved very fast, except at least 2 will have to start slowing drastically about now: white ones can't keep doubling brightness per watt every x years cause they're already like 200-300 lumen per watt which approaches 100% conversion, and #2 to "fail" will be colored LED brightness per watt doubling every x years cause exactly 0 waste heat@the brightest color (green) would be 683 lumens per watt. When the "Moore's Laws" of the other LED specs will start to slow drastically I don't know but at least now there's hope for NIF-sized inertial confinement by mid-century while in 2020 it seemed hopeless. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats a bit like asking why was it important that this was able to solve a linear equation that most high school students could complete. Can also check with your local university's physics or nuclear engineering departments and see if they think this is unimportant. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (who re-posted this) - I'm still just as lost as I was above; the bold article doesn't really talk about this "event", the mention is in a section called "Breakeven" which the article about ignition says ignition should not be confused with breakeven. It looks like the bold target has an entire one sentence about this event??? — xaosflux  Talk 20:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * TBH, I'm also uneasy about this item, but for very different reasons. Having read up about this, it looks more like a publicity stunt to secure ongoing funding than a scientific breakthrough. I reposted it because it had previously been posted, I pulled it over the the bold target articles having referencing issues, and once those issues were resolved, I was asked to repost. And so I did. I cannot see that consensus has changed but personally, I would rather see this binned. However, I don't go by my personal opinion rather than what this group of editors concludes. If we are agreed that it shouldn't be there, let's pull it once more.  Schwede 66  20:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Schwede66 - I don't know enough about this topic to make a good choice on it; so I'm just approaching it as a lay reader. When looking at everything else in INT right now, there are bold articles that talk about the event that is in the news. Is this facility what the primary thing that is in the news, or is it just the place where a newsworthy event took place? Where is the article about this event? I think maybe it is Fusion ignition, but that article seems to have one sentence about the event. I see from supporters above that this is purportedly a major scientific discovery/breakthrough - but there isn't much content I'm seeing on any of these pages about the breakthrough itself. —  xaosflux  Talk 21:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fusion research of any kind is irrationally underfunded, they need it. All those fusion by like 2000 estimates were based on expectations of $30 billion 2022 dollars or something like that but actual funding was like half billion or something almost useless like that. Fusion power just gets exponentially harder the smaller the machine is, all other things being equal the "fuel thermal mass/inertia" is proportional to (fuel width times fuel width times fuel width) but "square meters touching the hundreds of millions of degrees cooler outside world" is only proportional to that divided by fuel width. Same reason an ocean of boiling water takes a lot longer to cool down than a drop of boiling water. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Question I see it's just been reposted. I don't know enough to know the specifics, but does it bother anyone else that the blurb is directly contradicted by the bolded article? The article clearly says that fusion ignition was achieved in 2021, and that this is a "scientific breakeven". This all seems to be approx. 95% PR hype, and I suppose we're probably just parroting news headlines, but if we're going to post something, shouldn't the blurb and the article say the same thing? Was there some particular rush to post before this fundamental issue was resolved? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The NIF article says that they achieved a "burning plasma" in 2021 but that's not the same as ignition, according to the exact definitions that they are using. In the burning achievement, the plasma was fusing but required external energy to keep it hot enough.  For ignition, the reaction has to produce enough energy to make it self-sustaining.  It's like when you light a fire -- you have to get it going fast enough that it will keep burning rather than just fizzling out.  It's confusing and quite technical because, in the NIF pellets, there isn't much fuel and so the reaction won't last long anyway – just a fraction of a second.  For more practical power generation, you want a machine like ITER which is planned to get a lot more plasma good and hot and then keep it fusing for an hour or so.   We should get our heads around this because ITER is expected to start testing in 2025 and so they will start making claims like "first plasma" then. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, Floquenbeam is still right to think that this is "approx. 95% PR hype". Even ITER won't produce more power than it consumes, when considered as a full system, but they don't plan to fully demonstrate that until 2040+.  See a sceptical view.  Our job is to help the world understand the details rather than being blinded by science.  In the meantime, my neighbour has recently installed solar panels on his roof.  This is functioning fusion power that's here today and seems economically viable.  That's the competition and it's winning. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Territorial fusion was never going to be 1st generation clean energy. Not with that budget it wasn't. For limitless green energy by current standards USA could've afforded an extra trillion inflation-adjusted bucks spread out over 1950 to 2000. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Territorial fusion was never going to be 1st generation clean energy. Not with that budget it wasn't. For limitless green energy by current standards USA could've afforded an extra trillion inflation-adjusted bucks spread out over 1950 to 2000. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Carr

 * Comment This looks well written, but there are still three cn tags in the article. Vida0007 (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: Support as the sourcing issues have already been dealt with. Vida0007 (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support One cn tag now, which shouldn't obstruct this nomination IMO. --38.106.246.207 (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, cn tag fixed (place of birth is mentioned in his PoC profile). The article is ready. Alexcalamaro (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The sourcing at Jim Carr still needs improvement.—Bagumba (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I've addressed the sourcing in the section mentioned above. Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wolf Erlbruch

 * Support Seems like a well-sourced article that is substantive and thorough. DanCherek (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda. Yes, support; many European parents certainly know how important he is. 's Nachts was one of the books distributed for free in the Netherlands for Kinderboekenweek, an unusual honor for a German author. The Guardian loved the duck book, and they were right to do so: parents, consider reading that book to your kids to help them cope with grief. The Story of the Little Mole Who Knew It Was None of His Business is just absolutely wonderful. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Angelo Badalamenti

 * Thank you for nominating! Some facts in the prose are without refs, and also the awards. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me get to work on that in a moment. Currently working on work work. ;) — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Article now fully sourced. Excellent composer with amazing career that created such amazing original work like the Twin Peaks and Laura Palmer themes. SitcomyFan (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support&mdash;Per this. Kurtis (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

European Film Awards

 * Oppose on quality. Table farm, very little prose. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, and per Jayron32.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've never heard of these and find no nomination in prior year. We cannot post all awards for cinema, so we select only the most significant. A fair number have been included at ITN/R, so I think a case would have to be made to expand the glut any further.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I proposed adding it on talk. I can not speak for everyone and don't know whether everyone heard of them. It is a major Film Award, it recognises European cinema, not only English language films and not only films screened in LA. The Awards have significant coverage - this is what counts. Previous ceremonies    are covered in the same sources that cover Oscars and BAFTAS. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is covered this year, too   . Kirill C1 (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not dispute any of that. But there are unquestionably a great many events that have significant coverage in the press that we nevertheless do not cover here in the interest of balancing the topics covered. The threshold certainly varies (e.g. soccer gets more events than gridiron) but this one is already well represented. Also, the Cannes and Berlin are more prestigious awards that honor European and non-English films.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for everything GCG says. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kenneth Powell (sprinter)

 * Support. Not seeing a reason not to. The biography is well-referenced, and has been updated with the news of subject's death, which has been reported in the major oriental outlets (e.g., ). MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I have never heard of him and not important enough for the global wikipedia news page, therefore oppose. Evan224 (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD. 65.94.215.11 (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Tell me you don't know the point of Wikipedia's ITN without telling me you don't know the point of Wikipedia's ITN. Tube·of·Light 03:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * okay i'm sorry i'm new to editing Evan224 (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being a bit snarky. I would suggest you go through Wikipedia's policies and rules (like Policies and guidelines, and for ITN specifically, In the news. Tube·of·Light 05:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Artemis 1 return

 * Support on significance, oppose on quality There is an update tag. Arrival of a craft that includes lunar orbits and beyond is significant per ITNR. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Already blurbed, and I don't think the return of a capsule to Earth counts as arrival of a spacecraft under the specific wording of the ITN/R entry: "Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations". DarkSide830 (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this was entirely expected as part of the mission; maybe it should have been ongoing? I'm all in favour of blurbing the launches of the mission - and even of Artemis 3 a second time if they do step onto the moon as planned. But the landings seem overkill to me. Nfitz (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The method of re-entry was an unknown and necessary to support future Artemis missions. M asem (t) 05:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I have to agree that this arrival isn't particularly worth blurbing. We blurbed the launch 25 days ago, and this unmanned test does not compare to the human missions planned for the coming years. I might be willing to blurb the human missions twice in this manner, but currently we don't even really know if humans would've survived this re-entry (at least, the Wikipedia article doesn't go into detail on how well this went). ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't think this qualifies as ITNR. "Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations" to me mean its arrival around the Moon, not its subsequent returns to Earth. -- KTC (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't ITNR. The Moon was the destination, not Earth. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Artemis 1 was the first step of the human exploration of the Inner Solar System. A successful mission, with a safe return for Earth is enough to make ITN imo. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It went to a place humans have already gone. This smacks of WP:CRYSTAL-gazing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is true. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Personally, I don't feel as if a return trip (atleast a return trip from the artemis 1) is worthy to get a second blurb. It's already gotten a blurb for launching so I don't believe that it needs to be blurbed again. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. Already blurbed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, We already had this one. Alex-h (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Georgia Holt

 * Support. Checked the article and it appears that it does not have sourcing issues. Vida0007 (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The "Discography" section needs sources. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @PFHLai It's now sourced. —Bagumba (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bagumba. -- PFHLai (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Filmography needs more refs. It was previously incorrectly sourced to one citation.—Bagumba (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Filmography section has remained largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Lee Lorenz

 * Comment Article is still marked as a stub. Vida0007 (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the Bibliography section is unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 St Helier explosion

 * Support – Nice work on the article, looks like a fine feature. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment What is the image supposed to be? Curbon7 (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a photo taken from just along the road from the building that was destroyed. Unfortunately as there has been a strict police cordon in place since the explosion it has not been possible to get a better picture. There are pictures by the Government press office and by accredited media and some by drone operators but none that appear to be licenced under creative commons. I can see if I can take a better one with a long lens and upload to Commons. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've now taken some photos and added them to the article. They aren't great, as the emergency services have erected screening to prevent onlookers from any nearby vantage point such as the public carpark that overlooks the site. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This seems important enough to post & the article looks like it’s good enough. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go. Vida0007 (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted, with a link to the article. Sam Walton (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks; at a press conference today the police have said that they have found all the victims they expect to find, so perhaps you could amend the blurb to nine people, rather than at least nine people.


 * Not sure an explosion in small offshore island enough to get limited space on homepage especially with other happenings. 41.58.53.58 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Silas

 * Support Seems adequately sourced. Kafoxe (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dorothy Pitman Hughes

 * Question: Can an admin please tell me if Hughes is eligible for ITN? I will work on her article if she is. Her death appears to be announced by the funeral home the day after her burial which was December 9. Obituaries then appeared in the news. ITN rules say the announcement must be within 7 days. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * First announcement + 7 days. This is fine. --PFHLai (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * support the second para of the “Early career” section is unsourced. I haven’t been able to see obituaries in English earlier than yesterday, so I think she may be suitable for inclusion in MP. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thank you, Alsor. Citations are done. Also I found an article in Rival Times saying her death wasn't announced until last night, so we're OK here. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This article looks ready to be posted for RD. Vida0007 (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ruth Madoc

 * Support, article looks OK. Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks decent. Referencing is adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Well-sourced and well-written. Vida0007 (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 10:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Indonesian new criminal code

 * Oppose and snow close no, not again. We already had this discussion before. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * yes and it was only closed because no article was nominated. Please stop abusing WP:SNOW. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support and snow unclose We've posted when a country №156 implemnented homosexual marriage not once, not thrice, but many, many times. We should post when countries move in the opposite direction as well 5.44.170.26 (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Significant news. I have corrected the article. Indonesian criminal procedure (id:Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana) is not the law that bans extramarital sex and added other restrictions, it is a revision of id:Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (Indonesian Criminal Code). Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs work For example, the lead of the nominated article says "By deviating as necessary from the Regulation of the President of the Republic of Indonesia dated 10 October 1945 No. 2, it stipulates that the criminal law regulations that are currently in effect are the Dutch criminal law regulations that existed on March 8, 1942".  This is too bureaucratic to be clear but, in any case, doesn't seem to reflect the change. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality but support on principle - this is a massive piece of legislation that removes rights we'd normally associate with a democratic country. --M asem (t) 14:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once updated per Masem, now that we have an article. Obviously major enough news to warrant widespread coverage. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Sheila1988 (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. Hrodvarsson (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, though Indonesia shouldn't be linked in the blurb, rather "Indonesian parliament" as a whole should link to People's Consultative Assembly. DecafPotato (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose on quality. As a very significant piece of legislation in one of the world's most populous countries (definitely democratic backsliding...), I would support it. Unfortunately, the quality is not anywhere close to where in needs to be. Neutralitytalk 18:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - The blurb mentions extramarital sex (i.e. adultery) which is illegal in a decent amount of democratic countries, including some of the United States, and seemed to already be illegal in Indonesia prior to this. From the sources provided for the ITN nomination it's generally referred to as "sex outside of marriage" which sounds more like premarital sex to me - which would be an even more significant removal of rights. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality, support once updated as per above. 125.59.140.165 (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per Hrodvarsson. BilledMammal (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Bit of a question on targeting here - the target article, Indonesian Criminal Code states in it's infobox and later in the article that this legislation was repealed and replaced. Sources seem to be calling the new legislative package by this name as well, but it feels like there is a dissonance between what the article is suggesting and the sources used. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the lead of the target article still says "...the criminal law regulations that are currently in effect are the Dutch criminal law regulations that existed on March 8, 1942." and so it's talking about the old code not the new one. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think then it would be beneficial to the nomination that a new article be created for this new code, or at least re-target to the Indonesian criminal procedure page, or one specifically discussing the protests and discussion surrounding the new legislative package. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Supportper notability. Its a country with one of the largest populations with over 200 million people.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Per notability' isn't an argument. Of course it's notable. The question is, is it headline-worthy. (I'm neutral on it myself; I don't feel I understand the situation well enough.) But I see people saying things like 'Support - notable', and that's just deploying one of Wikipedia's favourite buzzwords in place of any actual argument. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's how it works around here. Notability and significance for the purpose of ITN doesn't have any sort of descriptor attached to it, which means all that is needed to determine significance is a consensus. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  20:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

All South Koreans to become younger

 * Oppose and snow close Why is “announces plans” ITNR-worthy? _-_Alsor (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * because it's the start of a long and arduous process, it will require slow and multiple changes in law to implement; this is the notable milestone. Also not snow. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an enclyopedia, not a news journal, as has been said countless times. This is notorious, but for now this and nothing is the same. When it becomes a reality, then we will debate it. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stop calling for snow in early votes. You don't know at that point whether WP:SNOW is going to be relevant, and it just looks like a clumsy attempt to shut down discussion. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have literally only asked for it in two (2) discussions that I have participated in this week. If you think it's problematic, that's strictly subjective. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I think it's problematic too, and I would also ask that you disengage from doing so. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I doubt that suggesting it exclusively twice (and it's completely irrelevant that it was in two successive nominations) is problematic. It's an opinion that should be respected. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Very interesting fact and important event on national level. Kirill C1 (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Alsor. Good faIth nom PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The national assembly has just passed a relevant law so this seems a reasonable time to run the story. I've suggested an alt blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Relatively minor administrative weirdness that brings in S. Korea with the rest of the world of how age is calculated. This is a DYK at best. --M asem (t) 13:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you can call the age of millions of people a minor thing. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Their physical age is not changing. Someone born in S. Korea on 1/1/1993 will still have been on this planet for 30 years come 1/1/2023. It is more what from an administrative side how they documented age. They are now bringing that outdated system in line with the rest of the world. M asem (t) 14:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This will be quite a big deal in South Korea. Recall our rubric above, "Please do not oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country...". Andrew🐉(talk) 15:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an administrative change, nothing more. My argument has nothing to do with being related to a single country. M asem (t) 15:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose good faith nom. Unless I'm misreading this, nothing has actually happened outside of planning. We don't typically post plans. Beyond that, this sounds like something along the lines of Ruritania planning to switch from driving on the left side of the road, to the right. Mildly interesting but not exactly ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The change is bureaucratic filing, which is boring. Both in theory and practice: at least some Koreans have long been aware of the difference to the rest of the world and have counted their age as 0 until first birthday for years anyway, so I don't think it can sneak into ITN-worthy as having an effect on a whole population either (edit: and seeing as proposed change is just for bureaucratic purposes, I doubt the Korean population who do count +1 or +2 will bother changing their age in everyday life anyway). Kingsif (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose May be worth posting when it actually happens, but nothingburger at the moment. Curbon7 (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support when it actually happens.  Quantum XYZ  ( chat  ) 07:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Question: The article said "On 8 December 2022, the National Assembly passed a bill that would prohibit the usage of traditional ages on official documents effective June 2023." A national parliament passing a law is it "actually happening." Of course most laws need rules and regulations to work, but for this one, this is set and in stone and is actually happening. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is an administrative change, for all intents and purposes and for all we know may not even have an individual impact depending on how individual people feel about it. Encyclopedic, notable, DYK material. Not ITN worthy though. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – The bill has passed, the change will be made. Feels to me like a major step in cultural standardization. Article looks good, so I'm all for blurbing this. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Opposebut in my opinion it would be good fit for DYK.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do think there's a misunderstanding at play on what DYK is; DYK is about featuring recently created/improved articles, while ITN is about featuring articles that have seen some expansion because of recent events. It often feels like "interesting news" is devalued in ITN because "we have a different section for that," but this perspective doesn't make sense to me. I do think interestingness (and especially a certain level of encyclopedia-ness) is a valuable thing to consider for ITN as well. This might also tie into us not being a news ticker. I recognize this might be a larger discussion for the talk page, but I hope I could convince some people to reconsider this item. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is administrivia. I opposed the 'new SI prefixes' nomination, and the 'no more leap seconds' one, and I oppose this too. Technical changes in how something is measured are not headline news. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Question - Would this group of ITN users also have opposed Decimal Day?--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  19:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can't speak for anyone else, but I probably would have. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I absolutely would have opposed that, yes, and also Dagen H.GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Decimalization of British currency was a massive change in the day-to-day experience of Britons, and I 100% would've supported such a news story. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the physical worth of their money hasn't changed. It's only how they calculate money from the administrative side. Still, you supported this current nom as well, so it makes sense for you to have also supported Decimal Day. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Honestly, it probably fits better in "Did you know" then ITN. It's an interesting fact, for sure, which makes it great for that section, but not ITN worthy. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It's encyclopedic knowledge; the Korean system of numbering ages is well-known across the world as different, and this marks a significant change; and it would interest Wikipedia's readers. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Encyclopedic knowledge' and 'interesting' are not reasons to make something headline news. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Grant Wahl

 * Oppose for now some CN tags needs to be resolved first.  I Need Support  😷 04:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's also resolve the WP:PROSELINE that makes this article a terrible read. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Did a quick cleanup of the prose issues and swapped out some sources for better versions. I think it's good to go in its current state, but obviously can be further improved (likely with longer obituaries yet to be published). Wahl is probably the most prominent soccer journalist in the United States, so this is a total shock.  Sounder Bruce  05:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been greatly improved. Honestly quite unnerving news. Kafoxe (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good. Vida0007 (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Looks like a Khahoggi situation here. His brother has made a statement that Grant was assassinated which isn't surprising to me at all. Arab oil monarchies kill another critic of theirs and the US'll let it slide once again --5.44.170.26 (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please drop the conspiratorial nonsense. There is no evidence for such a claim. Nor for a blurb either. HiLo48 (talk) 11:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Kudos to all who worked on this. It looks way better than when I last saw it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jovit Baldivino

 * Support, Article looks good. Alex-h (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are still uncited sections. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article now looks good. Marked as Ready. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The tables following the prose are largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have already fixed the sources for the tables. As for the awards section, I think the GMMSF award was his only award that he received during his lifetime. Vida0007 (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Does winning Pilipinas Got Talent count as winning an award? Perhaps winning the GMMSF award should be mentioned in the prose? --PFHLai (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article has improved  HurricaneEdgar    15:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is adequately referenced and beyond a stub. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 09:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jackie McLeod

 * More than long enough with 850+ words of prose. Formatting looks alright. Footnotes can be found in expected spots. Earwig has no complaints. This wikibio looks READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Vida0007 (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) The Game Awards

 * Support - Per Rhain. At this point, the Game Awards is more notable than the Oscars, pulling in way more viewers. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - The Game Awards were posted last year, why not post it again? Hungry403 (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Question Should we mention the whole Bill Clinton thing? I mean, it was pretty unique, and I believe the Oscars debacle when they announced the wrong movie first was also mentioned on this page back when it happened a few years ago. 5.44.170.26 (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * No, the guy was arrested as a show disruptor. "Nothing to see here" M asem (t) 04:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing to see here sounds like execatly the type of censorship Wikipedia should steer to avoid tbh 5.44.170.26 (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we blurb about streakers in a World Cup Final? NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe we also decided against mentioning the Will Smith slap in the Oscar blurb. In general it doesn't seem to be entirely proper to bring up short-term disturbances in these sorts of events. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, there really is nothing to see here. And since you've !voted to oppose it anyway, your question of covering it is outright moot. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ACtually if you read my opposing vote the question is not moot at all, but since most people just push his or her agenda (in this case - the gamers agenda), I see no one actually takes into the consideration or really even reads each other comments, so your comment here is truly moot. 5.44.170.26 (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your insinuation (and Andrew's) that there is an agenda being pushed in this nomination is bad faith and disruptive. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose — Good faith nomination, but the Game Awards is not a notable event on the likes of the Emmys or the Oscars. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Significant awards show that is certainly in the news. Kafoxe (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I'd argue The Game Awards are far more notable than the Oscars and Emmys nowadays—far more viewers, at least. It was posted last year too, so there's precedent. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 05:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on principle We posted The Game Awards last year, and the event tends to get significant media coverage within 24 hours of the event. Given the event ended an hour ago, it's probably too soon to judge media coverage. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The Elden Ring article is mostly in good shape, but the Synopsis section is entirely unreferenced. That will need to be fixed before this can be posted.  Shouldn't take too long to fix that. NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's pretty normal for plot sections to be completely uncited. I find it weird and uncomfortable as well, but it shouldn't be an issue for main page features at all. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:V is a core policy; even if it is weirdly normal to ignore it for plot summaries we should have higher standards for articles on the front page. BilledMammal (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the policy against the manual of style, I suppose; see MOS:PLOTSOURCE. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In such circumstances WP:POLCON applies, which tells us that we follow the policy. BilledMammal (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know why there's a debate on this. There have been several TFAs from this year that have completely unsourced plot sections. MOS:VG allows for the plot to be sourced to the game itself if necessary. But if you want sources, there's possibly some that can be found for the convoluted thing.  &ddagger; The Night Watch &omega;     (talk)   13:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I just want to note that verifiable is not a synonym for inline citations; just because something doesn't have inline citations does not mean it is in conflict with WP:V. WP:MINREF, which re-states what is in WP:V, makes it clear that while some material must have inline citations, there are other ways that material is verifiable.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is standard practice across all fiction works that the plot summary is assumed to be sourcable to the work itself, as long as it is concise and only summarizes the work. M asem (t) 13:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support—major event in the industry, was posted last year, and recieved significant coverage. DecafPotato (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Both articles look well put-together. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Minimal coverage in reliable sources with wide readership; almost all sources covering it are gaming-focused sources. BilledMammal (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I watched most of the thing and it was an embarrasing show, it's mostly an advertisement filled with trailers and straight up ads (that Grubhub ad) lol which take 90% of the time. Comparing it to the oscars is like comparing some youtube star wars/pop culture interviewing podcast to the Larry King or Charlie Rose's shows. 5.44.170.26 (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit Also the fact that this was posted last year is not an argument. It hadn't been posted before, shouldn't have been posted then and should not be posted now. The only real argument to notability that I can see here is the whole bill clinton/alt-right debacle. 5.44.170.26 (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I really don't get why this big advertisement TV show became the canonical game awards all of the sudden (rather than the much older and more respectable BAFTAs or GDC), and yet here we are... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd support a nomination for the BAFTA's next year (provided that the article meets quality requirements). NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't personally like the show doesn't mean it isn't eligible for ITN. Honestly, the fact that we've posted it last year, and that the Game Awards drew in more viewers, makes it notable enough. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Take your strawman arguments off this website, please. If oscars were 80% trailers and advertisements for services like the Grubhub, I'd vote against them being posted as well. 5.44.170.26 (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that the event is being covered widely by reliable sources, and brought in more viewers than the Oscars. It shouldn't so quickly be discounted. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NOTPROMOTION. This seems to be a highly promotional trade show.  There are lots of these for many products and there are even awards for the best advert.  Commercial interests make these unreliable  -- computer games magazines were notorious for biased reviews to protect their advertising revenue. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The show itself, I would tend to agree that it is overly promotional, but the same could be said of the Oscars or Emmy ceremony (which are supported by ad breaks). That said, the awards themselves are ones selected by a large jury of industry members (akin to the voting members of the Academy for the Oscars), and what resulted from those awards is the focus here (as well as the focus in non-gaming sources covering it) M asem (t) 13:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oscars and Emmy are awarded in film and music, which are performing arts and greatly impact everyday life. Video games have never reached that level of importance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Video games have exceeded film in annual global revenues, and its estimated there will be 3 billion people playing video games in 2023. . Video games are still "young" compared to film and music, but to claim they have no importance is severely missing the mark. M asem (t) 14:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that gaming is a rapidly growing industry, but its annual revenues don't make it more important than film or music. While video games such as Pac-Man, Super Mario, The Legend of Zelda, Grand Theft Auto and Pokémon Go have exerted significant cultural impact in different periods, it cannot be said for the industry as a whole, so it's better to wait and see how that trend progresses in a decade or two from now.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Coffee is the world's most popular drink with about 400 billion cups drunk annually. So, should we promote awards like Roaster of the year?  And then do beer and wine too?  Or consider cars as there's about 1.5 billion cars in the world now.  So, should we do  Car of the Year too?  No, the main reason that we have editors here lobbying for videogames is that they are videogamers, right?  See WP:FAN, WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You might also see WP:AGF. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If there's a better explanation then let's hear it. For comparison, consider the following annual awards which are also in the news this week:
 * Person of the Year
 * House of the Year
 * Designer of the Year
 * Model of the Year
 * Family car of the Year
 * Sports personality of the Year
 * Word of the Year
 * Album of the Year
 * Barista of the Year
 * School of the Year
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 14:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's safe to assume you would also oppose hooks about the Oscars, Emmys, and Grammys? – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 15:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose mostly per Andrew. I don't get why these particular awards should be posted when there is a plethora of things with similar recognitions (maybe because we have a high-quality article?). And the fact that we posted it last year is not an argument for posting this year.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of sufficient quality and news sources have covered it to a sufficient level to demonstrate significance. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support - It's true that there is a sufficient amount of news coverage and that the article has been updated. But I just don't know if it "feels" significant.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - this is a serious event, and hard to say it's not on a parse with athletic sporting events. That said though, the winning game should not be bolded. It's the event that's in the news, and per sporting examples such as this "... the Los Angeles Rams defeat the Cincinnati Bengals in the Super Bowl ..."], we did not bold "Los Angeles Rams". Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In cases like the Booker Prize, we do bold the winner if the article on that winner is up to snuff. Same with things like the Nobels. There's no reason the team articles in competition games can't be bolded, but those articles are usually of subpar quality. M asem (t) 14:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support clearly notable and biggest awards for gaming. Shadow4dark (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per precedent last year; Add Game Awards to Recurring. DrewieStewie (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Video games do not have the same cultural relevance as film or sport. I'm disregarding any arguments about the format of the event (whether it runs ads has zero relevance for notability) or any arguments based on the false notion that this event received more attention than the Academy Awards. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: the award is not significant and well-known enough to warrant ITN. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support We posted the Game Awards winner for 2020 and 2021, and the article is in good shape, so I don't see why we should draw the line at this year. I find most of the arguments against posting it unconvincing, and that some of them, such as "video games are not as important as film", reeks of misplaced elitism. And I say this as someone who is mostly uninterested in video games.  Mount Patagonia  (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Major award show for major industry, widely covered in RSes. I'm not seeing much reason why we would post the Emmys or Grammys and not this. Phediuk (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Rhain and others. I also heavily dispute the argument that this event is not as notable as the Academy Awards, considering the 2021 Oscars received 16.6 million viewers according to Nielsen Media Research, while this event received 85 million livestreams in 2021. Although the former statistics may be conservative due to Nielsen Media primarily basing TV viewership on household estimates (And the latter possibly inflated because of unreliable streaming statistics) they appear to have audiences of relatively similar size.  &ddagger; The Night Watch &omega;     (talk)   20:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support a significant award in its industry, and has been covered in general RSes. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The top recognitions of a 100-billion-plus dollar industry and its professional competitors.CoatCheck (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support If there is an Oscar or Emmy award for video games, it is the Game Awards, and a couple of the arguments seem to stem from video games being somehow inherently inferior to traditional media such as music or shows, of which I'd argue that video games have carved their slice in the pie of traditional media. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Oscar and Emmy (technically, they are also trade shows as they are held by associations) winners don't exactly get New York Times headlines, either. TGA definitely holds more attention nowadays, and it should go into ITN/R soon. Juxlos (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Game Awards were established only in 2014, while video games have been popular in the 1990s at least. I'm unconvinced this award is mature enough, achieving the same prestige as Oscars or a comparable distinction in other field. Brandmeistertalk  10:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are other awards that are 20+ yr, such as the BAFTA Games or the Game Developers Choice Awards, but with exception of the BAFTA, those do not normally get mainstream coverage, and I don't think, as a video game editor, I'd want to try to justify those. The BAFTA Games are important but they also tend to be specific to UK game production, whereas the Game Awards is international. It should also be pointed out that the Game Awards are effectively the spiritual successor to Spike Video Game Awards which were established in 2003 with the same head guy Geoff Keighley, and which he had to change when Spike opted to drop them. M asem (t) 13:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd never heard of Spike and find that it was "The First Network for Men" – the TV equivalent of a lad mag. One can understand why it might appeal to the Wikipedia demographic which is predominantly male, right?  But, alas, it has now been rebranded as Paramount which I've heard of but never watch.  If I want some Top Gear style programming, I find there's plenty on other channels. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per and . -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - industry award that isn't significant enough. I know that we could make the same argument about the Emmys and other awards, but we should be dialing back the number of recurring sports and award-related items, not expanding them. Neutralitytalk 18:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support We've posted this award in years past, and Elden Ring is listed as a good article. While I do share some skepticism of TGA, the video game industry is one of media's biggest and in my view should have once a year posting. Curbon7 (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Important award that deserves the main page. Would like to comment that this has been published on pt.wiki. Skyshifter   talk  14:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Has gotten coverage from several RSes. As others have said, it's basically the Oscars/ Emmy's of video game awards.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 14:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Posted previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Кирилл С1 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand that Wikipedia does not operate by majority vote, but we're currently at 23 supports and 10 opposes after three days of debating this blurb. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a difficult one, but I do believe that this has significant coverage to warrant a blurb. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  03:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC).
 * Posted Consensus has emerged in favor of posting this item.  Spencer T• C 07:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I find it a bit strange to post a picture of GRRM when he was mostly responsible for world building, and I would argue he is not largely responsible for the success of Elden Ring. Just putting up his picture because he is a famous person does not sit right with me.Chaosquo (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. He wasn't even at The Game Awards, either. I'd rather we switch it out for The Game Awards' logo or something like that.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 15:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thirding this. Kafoxe (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support but please change the picture of GRRM to someone/something else as mentioned above. YD407OTZ (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per Masem's arguments for posting, but agree that GRRM seems odd when he wasn't even there. It's somewhat understandable when we don't have photos of other members of the Elden Ring team to use (a photo of Miyazaki would make the most sense but we don't have any), so I'd either use the logo of the awards show or the box art of the game or something. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 17:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Revert image Listen I like George as much as everyone else, but it was defintiely a bit of a rouge decision, as the relevance is very slim and it was not discussed. Just revert the image back to Griner. Curbon7 (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose GRRM image as giving undue weight to GRRM's involvement over FromSoftware themselves; I personally prefer using the game's boxart instead. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose GRRM image Awkward Western bias that is disingenuous to everyone else involved. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 21:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull This shouldn’t have been posted. As User:Andrew Davidson stated, this is basically a promotional trade show. There’s a certain bias which many of the supporting editors seem to have. This year’s awards were not covered by The NY Times, the American paper of record. This lack of attention suggests that these are not comparable to the Oscars or Grammys. Thriley (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And where does it say only the "American paper of record" is accepted for ITN? Seems the certain bias is merely toward US-centric sources. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:BCF5:F4E1:D281:2A17 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It was covered by the Washington Post, LA Times, Variety, BBC, Toronto Star, and The Guardian — all of which are some pretty solid news sources. Why would we pull just because the NYT isn't on that already long list of sources? <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 04:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, it actually was covered by the New York Times last year, and it's linked on last year's ITN nomination. Seems they just chose not to this year, which doesn't really matter for our purposes since it's covered by several other WP:RSes.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 04:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it says a lot that they didn’t cover it this year. Would they decide to cover the Oscars one year and not the next? Thriley (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really think it says that much. As evidenced by this very ITN nomination, a lot of people still think of video games as being niche or an unimportant passtime compared to movies or TV shows despite how big the video game industry has become. Besides, as I said, whether the New York Times specifically covered this year's show doesn't really matter. What matters is if it was covered by any WP:RSes, and it was covered by quite a few of them.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 06:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * At least take the photo down, either Griner or the would be King of Germany are far more important stories to merit a photo on the mainpage. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The picture is outrageous.  The caption asserts that Martin wrote the game but, so far as I can tell:
 * He just provided some world-building (and here's what happened to it)
 * He didn't write the story
 * He didn't write the code
 * He didn't win an award
 * He didn't appear in the show
 * He isn't mentioned in the bold article
 * See also photobombing. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Image swapped. I suggest further discussion take place at WP:ERRORS as more people will probably see the discussion there, than in a header prefixed with "(Posted)". Anarchyte  ( talk ) 09:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But they won't be able to find it again because WP:ERRORS doesn't maintain an archive of discussions. We need a good record of this debacle for the next time the hypefest is suggested for ITN/R again. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As the image poster, I wouldn't have been semi-WP:BOLD if he wasn't already mentioned in Elden Ring's lead, as well as in some of the award's coverage. In hindsight, it was too much of a stretch in this case to have the image from the topmost blurb (WP:ITNPICT). —Bagumba (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: "In video games" should be trimmed, it's redundant. RAN1 (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there was concern that one might incorrectly think board games? An alternative could be In video games, Video game Elden Ring wins Game of the Year..., unless one is worried that it reads as if a video game won a general game award.—Bagumba (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * One time I forgot what one award was so I clicked a link to remind myself. I don't think that's an issue since linking those articles is kind of the point. RAN1 (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it's a balancing act with MOS:NOFORCELINK: Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. —Bagumba (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's simply not notable on a world scale. I'm a gamer, I watched the Game Awards, but it's only relevant in video games. Like how come we didn't post that DRX won the LOL world champs even though the LoL world championships got more viewers than the Game Awards? Makes no sense. We shouldn't turn this into an video game wiki. Alexysun (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The argument that something shouldn't be posted because it may be unrelated to the world at large is seen as unhelpful, otherwise we'd never post articles like the Premier League, AFL Grand Final, U.S. Open, etc. As for Worlds, no one nominated it, so no discussion was had on its inclusion. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 03:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll try to remember for next year, assuming the metrics are still high. Curbon7 (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Brittney Griner and Merchant of Death exchange

 * Viktor Bout–Brittney Griner prisoner exchange has now been created. Cheers! BD2412  T 23:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Both articles are in good shape, story is being covered by major news sources. Checks every box.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Jayron32. Not going to let this one get SNOWed out, as it's absolutely newsworthy. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  20:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * SNOWed? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment We don't need sensationalist nicknames like "Merchant of Death" in the blurb. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the name that he's commonly referred to as, so I thought it was notable enough for inclusion PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just "arms dealer" is sufficient. We need to keep the blurbs neutrally worded. M asem (t) 20:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I'll remove it from the blurb. Thanks for bringing this up PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Blurb too intricate. Streamlining needed. Curbon7 (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 As the most clear-cut. Curbon7 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in general, but I would just say "US basketball player Brittney Griner is released from Russian custody in a prisoner exchange with Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout". BD2412  T 20:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think why she was arrested is valuable information PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * People can read the details in her article. The exchange would be notable no matter what crime she had been convicted of. BD2412  T 21:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Should the deal be a separate article? As there is also discussion related to Whelan's non-release. --M asem (t) 21:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per all the supports above. <span style="background: #ffcc00; ">𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 ☎️ 📄 21:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Previous blurb ideas have ignored the fact that they were both "released". I'd propose "American basketball player Brittney Griner and Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout are freed via a prisoner exchange." -- Kicking222 (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, but only if we include what they were each convicted for, and we place the emphasis on Bout as the more significant release, rather than the current emphasis on Griner. BilledMammal (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no space or reason to include their convictions. We know that the punishment that Griner got was far worse than the crime, but when you include them, it clearly implicates the non-neutrality of their inclusion. M asem (t) 22:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would tend to disagree that Bout is the more significant release, after sitting in various prisons for 14 years. BD2412  T 22:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The nomination does not list a specific article for this event and it's such a bizarre deal that we seem to need a good explanation.  As I understand it, there are about a million people in jail in the US for cannabis offences and yet a special deal is done with Putin for this particular user!?  And this involves letting go a major criminal known as the "Lord of Death".  Is truth just stranger than fiction or is there more to this than it seems!?  Anyway, as we are not a celebrity news ticker, we need an encyclopedic article to justify an entry here. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. Viktor Bout–Brittney Griner prisoner exchange created. BD2412  T 23:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That was quick. But the article says nothing of Prince Mohammed bin Salman who, according to the BBC, is claiming the credit for brokering the deal, which took place in Abu Dhabi, just like a spy movie.  The White House and Saudis don't seem to agree on the facts of the matter.  Is the deal actually written down somewhere, like a treaty?  It's a shame John Prados is dead (see below) as we need someone like him to ferret out the details. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have sources handy for adding the Prince's claims, please feel free to do so. BD2412  T 23:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The BBC report is the one news source listed in the nomination. It says, "According to a joint Saudi-UAE statement, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman played a leading role in mediation efforts, along with UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan. ... But the White House denied any mediation had been involved. "The only countries that negotiated this deal were the United States and Russia,""  So who do we believe and why? Andrew🐉(talk) 23:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We have run lots of news stories where the subject (the two individuals here) rather than the "story itself" are the bold link. Like when we bold link the winners of awards when the award is ITN/R. That cannot be a serious reason to oppose. Kingsif (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If there's an ITN/R contest such as the Boat Race or Nobel Prize then naturally we will highlight the winners. But there is usually a central article and it's that which is ITN/R.  This story is not like that.  There are lots of news stories involving pairs of celebrities –- Harry and Meghan are all over the popular media currently.  Per WP:NOTNEWS, we require something more. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Well covered, but likely lacking any long-term impact. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not all that big of a deal in the ordinary affairs of state. Might be notable enough for an article, but not for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Major news covered in variety of sources -- as sources noted, the exchange is somewhat unprecedented in the imbalance of what they were each held for, which adds to notability. Articles are both detailed and up to Manual of Style standards. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Andrew and others. not really “major news” enough for ITN and w/ very international coverage. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this an EC covered topic or not, may i comment or can it be removed on a whim? Seems somewhat adjacent to a certain topic area that shall not be named but not quite? What is the deal here? 91.96.166.33 (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per various above, including Rauisuchian. I think keeping the blurb simple is best, prefer alt2 at the moment. Kingsif (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasons above. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT1 or ALT2 (but linking Viktor Bout–Brittney Griner prisoner exchange). This has been a major story of the non-localized aspects of the Russo-Ukrainian War, and will likely go down as one of the most prominent prisoner exchanges in American history. As always, moral outrage over a hook's context should play no role in deciding whether the hook is posted. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 02:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Major event. I'm curious how this vote would have looked like if we were in the 1960-s and were discussing the Powers-Abel swap. I bet plenty of people would have voted against posting that as well lol lmao. 5.44.170.26 (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The most recent case of this sort was Release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and we didn't run it. The Death of Harry Dunn is also prominent in the news currently because the US spy, Anne Sacoolas, was sentenced yesterday.  But she was careful not to come to the UK for the trial, for fear that she would be locked up.  Agencies like the CIA and FSB like to protect their staff and they are able to make special deals for them.  So it goes. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I often like imagining what ITN would've looked like if it was around in the past. We probably would've blurbed Powers-Abel, and this is arguably just as notable PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Powers and Abel were separately notable but the swap was the only connection between them and we don't seem to have an article about it. That swap also involved Frederic Pryor and so such hostages seem to be fungible assets -- pawns of the players of the Great Game. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I remember noting in WP:HOWITNWORKS that the Watergate burglary would never have been covered on ITN/C, because at the time, its significance was totally underplayed. I imagine that a lot of ITN contributors at the time would have pointed to the White House press release calling it a "third-rate burglary". 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that probably would've been the case haha PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: prisoner exchanges are fairly routine events in international diplomacy. --K.e.coffman (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How many prisoner exchanges between nuclear-armed powers have occurred in the last 20 years? A handful. I would not describe that as "fairly routine." Neutralitytalk 05:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We cover international diplomacy. We don't have an arbitrary nuclear armament criteria to determine nations as newsworthy. 85.240.221.153 (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The international diplomacy between the P5 (or P5+1, if you prefer) is more significant than diplomacy among non-P5 members. And international events involving one or more G20 members are usually more noteworthy, or newsworthy, than other international events. That's just the reality of the matter. Neutralitytalk 00:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Very interesting story, and certainly worth an article, but I don't see how this is ITN worthy. DecafPotato (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If it does get posted though, I much prefer ALT2, though the exchange itself should be bolded. DecafPotato (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb with Griner, Bout, and prisoner exchange being WikiLinked. Major politicall/diplomatic prisoner swap; and its certainly a story of magnitude within the scope of ITN. DrewieStewie (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per DrewieStewie. Considering the state of US-Russia relations at the moment, this is a major prisoner swap, and as mentioned by DrewieStewie, the story is notable for ITN. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per reasons stated by DrewieStewie, but preferably with the prisoner exchange article being the one in bold as mentioned by Tamzin. Was initially leaning on oppose but this has become a major news event, and is also quite noteworthy given the current circumstances. The proposed target articles (Griner, Bout, and the prisoner exchange article itself) are also in good shape and well-sourced. Vida0007 (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt 2. Major story, articles look in good shape. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - major international event, fairly rare, articles in OK shape. Neutralitytalk 05:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support as per above, support Alt. Blurb 2 Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Well-developed standalone article that explains the international importance of the event.  Spencer T• C 05:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-post oppose: The practice is practically a tradition. RAN1 (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but you could say the same about the Super Bowl, for which we still post the results every time one happens. BD2412  T 21:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not enthusiastic about posting prisoner exchanges for people who find work in Russia under Putin. RAN1 (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You know, RAN1, you don't make the news coverage of the story go away because you wish the news hadn't covered it. Reliable source evidence that this was a major event exists.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said. This was very closely related to the war, and I don't think that fact merited an item. RAN1 (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because it was related to the war, it probably did get a lot of news coverage, yes. One of the criteria we use to determine whether to post items is their news coverage. We can't and don't hide from that. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My point was, RAN1, that you can literally say "X happens all the time" for literally every single item that has ever been posted on ITN. It's a statement which is simultaneously true, and irrelevant, about every item.  What makes this prisoner exchange stand out among other prisoner exchanges is that this prisoner exchange is well-reported enough to have a public spotlight on it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Celine Dion diagnosed with Stiff-person syndrome

 * Oppose - We've gone through similar stuff in the past, and the article contains only one sentence about this.  Quantum XYZ  ( chat  ) 12:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Not the purpose of ITN. Curbon7 (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Lots of notable people get diagnosed with diseases all the time. ITN is not a celebrity news ticker. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting on MainPage negative news about a living person with no impact on the rest of the world? Please don't. --PFHLai (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is arguably someone's private medical information. It's scarcely our business at all, much less front-page news. And practically speaking, we have a very full Recent Deaths feed. Even if it was in any way desirable to post celebrities' diagnoses, the flood of them would be overwhelming. We're certainly not doing it as blurbs. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't expect a diagnosis of an illness would ever be ITN material, unless perhaps the entire act of diagnosing the illness was itself notable. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - Per above. We aren't a celebrity news outlet, and this is someone's private medical inofrmation, as Genevieve pointed out. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is not being covered outside of celebrity news., if at all. The only source provided by the nom is an instagram post.  Which is to say, there is no evidence that reliable sources consider this significant enough for us to post it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

First official execution connected to Mahsa Amini protests

 * Support. No sourcing issues, and article is also well-written. Vida0007 (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Good faith nomination, but I think this is already covered in ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose already covered by ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, good faith nomination but covered in ongoing.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support – A high-quality article can quickly convince me to support an article for ITN, though the fact that this is also covered in Mahsa Amini protests makes me unsure. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a significant development and the article quality is high enough. The fact that executions are occurring is not covered in ongoing. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Both men that have been executed had injured members of the police. While we can argue the punishment was overly harsh, this seems to be in line with how Iran deals with criminals, and readily falls under the ongoing coverage. --M asem (t) 18:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Johnny Johnson (RAF officer)

 * Weak Oppose While Johnson was a member of a prolific air raid and deserves a mention in Wikipedia RDs owing to the fact that he's the last-surviving member, the article itself lacks many references in his 'Early life and education', 'Royal Air Force' and 'Post-military career' sections, if that can be fixed then I would deem this ready to post. UberLordMetagross (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh, even if he was not the last surviving member of that raid, he would deserve a mention because anyone who dies and has a Wikipedia article deserves a mention. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  06:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Not ready: Article has multiple citation needed tags. Flibirigit (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * At least eight {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not ready The eight {cn} tags are still there. Vida0007 (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Germany coup d'état plot

 * Support. What a nice day to live on Earth. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, but I would advocate that "Prince Heinrich XIII" should read "Heinrich Ruess" as a reflection of the actual title of the article unless the article name is changed, cf the ongoing discussion on the article's talk page Maximilian775 (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose A group of delusional extremists were arrested. Notable enough for an article, but not significant enough for the front page - if the group had accomplished anything other than being arrested then it would be different, but they didn’t. BilledMammal (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would argue that limiting ourselves only to disasters and successful coups would skew ITN but also penalise the efficiency of the German authorities for foiling the plot, and I would submit that this is not a good precedent. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't put up this story just as a "thank you" to the German authorities though PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, however the chances of such a plot being discovered early on before a coup is mounted in e.g. Burkina Faso are much slimmer than in Germany; and vice-versa, Burkina Faso is much more likely to suffer a successful coup than Germany. We should acknowledge such sensibilities if we are to be balanced and global. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is true PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom, per BilledMammal. Fringe wackos arrested for plot that had zero chance of succeeding. Yeah, it's WP:Notable. But not THAT notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, the J6 insurrectionists had no chance of success either, but IIRC they were in this slot around a year ago... Maximilian775 (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That was an actual attempted coup d'état, incited by a sitting POTUS that involved the storming of the US Capitol Building by thousands of insurrectionists. There is no comparison. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair. To be clear, I mean to draw a distinction in degree, not in kind, and in no way want to minimize the severity of J6. Maximilian775 (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that they did almost succeed at capturing Mike Pence. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support While nothing happened, this is what Jan 6 would have been for Germany. Add the mass law enforcement involvement to take in 20-some individuals and that makes is more than just stopping a wacko group. --M asem (t) 01:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like "would have been" is important here—it wasn't even attempted, so saying "if it did happen it would have been really big" is irrelevant—if it actually did happen it wouldn't be comparable.
 * That's more of a devil's advocate thing though; I support posting this on ITN. DecafPotato (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Still, this was nowhere near as large as Jan 6, and even if they hadn't been caught, it's very likely this wouldn't have spiralled out of control like it did in the Capitol PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per BilledMammal. Encyclopedicly relevant, but ultimately all that occurred was a number of arrests. Obviously using it as as hard and fast rule may not apply in all cases, but I think this event suggests an event that may have ended up somewhere how January 6th did, and while the established plot to create a coup is noteworthy, the failure of the plan to even begin makes it much less so. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * • Oppose per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: an attempted coup d'état to overthrow a democratic government is significant. There was an armed faction so the intentions were supported by realistic means. Prefer option 2, or add "self-styled" before prince, since such have been abolished over 100 years ago. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Planned, but not attempted. BilledMammal (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Support. Clearly important but also unusual. Really shows everyone that our way of live, our liberal democracy itself is at stake here!!! 5.44.170.26 (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Neutral Some fringe nutcases planned a plot. Bad? Yes. Any chance in succeeding? Hell no. Comparisons here to J6 are flawed in one critical way: during J6, insurrectionists literally occupied Congress. However, it would be hypocritical of me to oppose this while also advocating for more blurbs to posted overall, so I will land in the neutral column. Curbon7 (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 's well-stated argument has convinced me to support this posting. While this was just a hairbrained plot, the scale and legitimacy of the plot (i.e. the involvement of a former MP, a hereditary prince, and several military figures) is significant. Curbon7 (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I like ALT3 or ALT4, as the most streamlined. Curbon7 (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support: its significance is very clear. The related page is also in good shape. If it would be in other countries, it would be posted. Egeymi (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: The incident significant enough and important for the main page. It was a serious plot and faced a strong intervention by the police. -- M h hossein   talk 07:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb Article is good to go and this has become a big headline in the continent. Not on the same level as the self-coup attempt in Peru, but still significant enough to be posted. Vida0007 (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Changing my vote from alt blurb 1 to support alt blurb 2 per WP:BLPCRIME as brought up by SoWhy below. Vida0007 (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nowhere near as important or relevant as the self-coup in Peru. It was just news for one day. Vpab15 (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not convinced that this plot is significant enough. As others have said - if this actually went ahead in any meaningful way I would have supported, but I'm looking at the big world news websites and not seeing this story reaching the front-page significance of, for example, the Peru item. Sam Walton (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Wall Street Journal put the German plot on its front page instead of the attempted coup in Peru. 2601:204:D400:7310:24F3:76FD:3681:C088 (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb without name. Largest such conspiracy in recent history. Covered in major news sources around the world. I would support a blurb without mentioning Mr. Reuss though per BLPCRIME. Regards So  Why  10:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support these aren't just random people with ultra-extremist views, like National Action in the UK for example, with no hope of ever achieving their goals. They were royals, judiciary figures, MPs, people in the military and people linked to the Kremlin. They posed a real and credible threat. I also supported nominations a while back previous attempted assassinations (e.g. Argentina) and coup attempts (e.g. Guinea-Bissau) and they are significant in that they change the world we live in, both in real terms and perception. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking deeper into it, I'm shocked at just how many significant individuals were involved. That's enough to make this notable for ITN. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant political conspiracy - as much for the involvement of an AfD politician as for the titular prince. Front-page news here in the UK. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A group of plotters have been arrested before they took any actual action. That's it, no obvious wider implications. This seems notable enough to merit an article, but not significant enough for an ITN blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Suppory without indivual's name'. A notable event. Yes, fringe wierdos, but a substantial number of them with the apparent capability to do real damage. Article is in good shape. Individual shouldn't be named in blurb as per SoWhy. --12:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC) (Comment by, apologies for not signing correctly)
 * Support A good article, and a great example of how our collation of reliable sources results in a more clear and complete narrative that is truly useful to the reader. Significance is sufficient. 75.188.228.163 (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb2 further to several comments opting to not have Reuss' name in the blurb. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, in large part because it's the best newly-written article for ITN I have seen in a long while. Goos example of the type of article that makes sense to feature. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaning support with original blurb - Minor conspiracy, didn't amount to anything, but is making the news everywhere. The operation against the perpetrators is the largest in German history apparently, so I think it's enough to go up. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article is in good shape, reliable news sources are covering the story at a level that grants this significance. Checks every box.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - No, it wasn't the Beer Hall Putsch or the Kapp Putsch, but anytime this happens in a country where the government has been stable for decades, it's absolutely noteworthy.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose on the blurbs. All three blurbs label the 25 as terrorists, yet there is no mention. of a terrorist attack. Just think about the ones who have gone through real terror. In the sources provided, suspected members and supporters of a terrorist organization or terrorist network or of a terrorist threat is spoken about. Coup plot ok, terrorists no way.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's being overly pedantic, reliable sources describe the group as "terrorists" and a "terrorist network" and a "domestic terrorist organization" and similar language., , , , .  One does not actually have to succeed to be a terrorist.  It's a statement of intent, not of success.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition, this appears to be how law enforcement treated the scenario, giving them the necessary powers to an operation that big. M asem (t) 20:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jayron32 All your sources report on Suspected, not actual terrorists. Maybe MOS:TERRORIST will help you. To make of a suspect a terrorist on the Wikipedia main page even before they were put on trial...of course I oppose this.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you support 1 of the blurbs (alt blurbs 3 & 4) that doesn't use the word terrorists? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, to ALT3 and 4, I'd agree. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This was a crackpot plot with no chance of taking control of the German government. There is no evidence there was going to be military support from neighboring nations nor that there was broad support for it among the public. Thriley (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I will probably support if instead of "terrorists" it said "individuals" or some other neutral term. It's best not to assume anything about these individuals until the proceedings are over. Otherwise, I think the event deserves a mention in the news section.--Ideophagous (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not this again. We're not a court of law. We're not trying these clowns. If RS call them terrorists, we can and should call them terrorists. We don't need to wait for a court, if we have a reasonable range of news media. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how it works here, that's never how it has worked here. See WP:BLPCRIME. We never assume the RSes are right in this instance. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Switching to Support of alt. blurb IV.-- Ideophagous (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support 1 of the alt blurbs This may not have gone as far as the Peruvian coup attempt, but it was a significant plot. Would the people who oppose posting this have had a similar amount of opposition to posting the Gunpowder Plot if Wikipedia had existed in 1605?Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Widely posted, and we post "crackpot plots" all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Reading Turtle (talk • contribs)
 * There's a significant difference between January 6 and this. For one, January 6 involved storming the US Capitol. I don't think we would have posted a plot that didn't involve destruction of property or loss of life. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion as news event. Major reporting in numerous sources across the world. Germany's law enforcement treated it as a very severe and significant plot as is reported in international sources. Wiki article is detailed enough to link to on front page, could be expanded in detail. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- for the same reasons that I would oppose posting a similar event that happened in the US. No, January 6 is not at all the same, since that actually was an armed mob attempting to overturn the results of an election, and resulted in destruction of property and deaths. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this was simply a plot and not a failed attempt. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Far more similar to the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot than January 6. I don't think that it makes sense to post a plot that was in such an early stage. Teemu08 (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Major event that was a potential, elaborate threat to democracy. Absolutely similar to January 6 but without worry of US centricism. DrewieStewie (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * incomparable, extremely incomparable. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How is this similar to January 6? No one was hurt, so this is much closer to the Whitmer kidnapping plot, which we didn't post. --21:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * and in this case, very far from being comparable as well. We are talking about a coup plot in Germany..... _-_Alsor (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, exactly. If something *actually* happened, then sure, it would be worthy of posting, but literally, nothing of note happened other than initial planning, it sounds like. Good job on Germany's police force for disrupting the plot, but that also means it's not notable enough to post here. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot is a flawed comparison. That happened at a subnational level, which meant that it was less likely to be posted. This happened at a national level. I can’t really think of a comparable event in Wikipedia’s era, but a pre-Wikipedia event it seems more comparable to is the Gunpowder Plot. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's also add that unlike the US Germany is less centralised, did not have a controversial president with extreme views, certainly had very little civil unrest compared to the US since 1945, and gun violence and ownership is much much lower. Its politics is multi-party and much less adversarial than in US. Germany is also the birthplace of Nazism and started 2 worls wars, which brings about a while host of particular sensibilities. So apples and pears really. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - major international coverage of key event (modern Germany's largest-ever anti-extremist raid) in populous, economically important country. Sure, it's not January 6; but it's also not comparable to Whitmer kidnapping plot, which was at the sub-national level and involved fewer conspirators. Neutralitytalk 18:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, The event is notable for ITN  Alex-h (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not only was there no actual coup attempt, but there's no evidence that any military or police unit or leader supported whatever this was....Even calling this a "coup plot" seems a bit of a stretch, as a "coup" involves members of the country's own military/security forces ousting the incumbent government. -2003:CA:870A:8978:2579:D51A:4EE7:E43B (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the definition of coup or coup d'etat that even mentions military, police, leader, etc. But also the plotters include a lot of ex-military, and also ex-police and ex-politicians, and even the former aristocracy. Nfitz (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Looking at the rank of so many of the members, and the seriousness and coverage on the issue, then it indeed should be posted. Nfitz (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted After nearly 5 days of discussion, there is consensus to post the item.  Spencer T• C 07:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. If there is a consensus, there's certainly a very narrow one. I'm nonetheless enjoying that ITN this past month has been erring on the side of posting stories rather than not posting. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Peruvian self-coup d'état attempt

 * Support Peru politics going off the rails. Must be a day ending in Y This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Self coup, seems like a big deal. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until article is improved This is more than the dissolution of Congress. According to Castillo's announcement, a Constituent Congress has been convened, the judiciary and the Public Ministry will be "reorganized", a curfew is imposed... a full-fledged self coup. I would wait for the article to be expanded further. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. Seems a significant self coup, but the first reports were just two hours ago and the situation remains unclear. Give it some time for information to emerge and the article to catch up. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The impeachment vote in the Congress of the Republic of Peru has just passed with 101 in favor. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, though it is likely to be moved to a new title, given that this is part of a broader political crisis, the article is sufficient in length, depth, and level of referencing, and the topic is being covered by reliable sources. I have no problem posting this on the main page.  No problem waiting a day or so for the article to stabilize a bit, but even in the state it is in, it's quite a good Wikipedia article already. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment A lot has happened:
 * The military is now opposed to Castillo
 * Congress removed Castillo from office
 * The Vice President Dina Boluarte is set to take her oath of office in about an hour
 * Title of article was updated accordingly due to these events


 * Comment Added Castillo being impeached blurb. BastianMAT (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb III - Crazy news, highly notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually change this to alt blurb V, III could be confused for saying Dina Boluarte was the one impeached and detained. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Whew, that was a lot...--WMrapids (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC) oppose, and work on the blurb with something on the lines like Dina Boluarte takes office succeeding Castillo who attempted a coup...Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Until whatever the heck is happening to be cleared up, then post the result. Curbon7 (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support obviously. I've added an alt blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait for further developments. This is a rapidly changing story as of this writing. Vida0007 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hence the alt blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support for the current blurb (which is a modified version of alt blurb 5). Was going to change my stance after seeing the alternative blurbs but this event has already been posted a few hours ago. Nevertheless, I support this, as this is a major political event in Peru (and South America). Vida0007 (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Castillo has been arrested. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep waiting - We're not through with this yet.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  19:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Castillo is arrested and impeached. Seems to be done.--WMrapids (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, oppose the current blurbs. The blurb should focus on the change of the head-of-state to Dina Boluarte, as this was not a successful coup.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  20:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Alt blurb 3 is now up regarding Dina Boluarte becoming president. Also, "Dina Boluarte October 2022 (cropped).jpg" could possibly be used as well.--WMrapids (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb number IIIParadise Chronicle (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support but wait; considering how many unknowns exist right now, I am not a fan of any of those blurbs. We should know a lot more about this rapidly developing situation in the coming hours.--JohnHawkinsBois (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I know this has already happened, but I feel like we need two separate blurbs here, even if they relate to the same event. I think wrapping the ascension of Boluarte and the impeachment of Castillo are events that should be isolated into their own blurbs. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ITN/R now, of course. I agree with DarkSide830 that this is a lot of detail to put into one blurb. Is there precedent for a two-sentence blurb? Davey2116 (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Qualifies under ITN/R and article covers in sufficient depth. I support blurb IV blurb V (Edited, prefer the newly added blurb since it reads chronologically). --Pithon314 (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 5 Article is in good shape. --Vacant0 (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on significance (have not reviewed article quality). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 5 Significant development in the country's politics, definitely worth posting. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, preferably with alt blurb V (or is that too long?). Quality is acceptable. Moscow Mule (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted (modified) Alt blurb 5. Removed the bit about Castillo being arrested as though referenced, at least one reliable source is saying it's unclear if that actually happened or not. -- KTC (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Swiss Federal Council election

 * Support - Article is of good quality, change in government for a major power. Looks good. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case, change in government = a Cabinet reshuffle. Joofjoof (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a bit more than an ordinary cabinet reshuffle in Switzerland though, as the cabinet effectively functions as the collective head of state. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Question if this is significant because incumbents are generally reelected and we have two new people, then shuoldnt the blurb include mention of who they are replacing and if they resigned vs lost re-election? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, are these two new members giong to be immediately the (rotating) head of the 7? or will they take 'office' in 6 and then 7 years time? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The two are part of the Federal Council after their election. The rotating head is elected each year and in a separate election from within the 7 Federal councilors. And the president is only the president of the Federal Council, not Switzerland. Maybe worded too simply. The presidency doesn't hold such a valor in Switzerland as in other countries. The Federal Council is more a consensus kind of Government.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * SupportParadise Chronicle (talk) 10:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose (1) The Federal Council is indirectly elected by the Swiss parliament, with each seat already reserved for a political party. (2) This is only a by-election for 2 seats. Joofjoof (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Weak support in light of responses. Still, I agree with Modest Genius' comment below - partial Council elections should not be considered ITNR. Joofjoof (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ITNR does not require a popular election. (Many heads of state or government are not, in fact, elected in any meaningful sense, but merely seize power.). As explained above, in the Swiss system, the by-elections are the elections that are of political significance, not the general elections, counterintuitively.  Sandstein   11:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the issue is that the Federal Council is equivalent to the government Cabinet in other countries. Have we previously posted when new ministers are confirmed? Joofjoof (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Swiss system is unique in that the Cabinet (the seven ministers) are also collectively the head of government and head of state; they are not subordinate to another officeholder such as a prime minister or president.  Sandstein   12:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Except it isn't really. The Federal Council serves as a small-size cabinet (only 7 members), but it is also a collegial presidency (decisions are taken by consensus or internal vote, not by a prime-minister). Furthermore, once elected, members cannot be removed until the end of their four-year term and are usually re-elected until they step down; this is more akin to heads of states than ministers. Finally, this is the first change in composition since 2018 (in four years), meanwhile the UK saw 4 prime ministers in that time range which (I suppose) all had their blurb. Julio 9 7 4 ◆ (Talk-Contribs) 12:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Either the change of the presidency or the by-elections should qualify. Politically relevant are the by-elections. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would argue that 1. Many heads of governments are elected by the legislature as well (British PM or German chancellor for example), and 2. It's still the first seat change since 2018 (four years), and here two seats were changed at the same time (more than average). The last regular elections in 2019 actually saw all councillors re-elected handily (with only a minor challenge against Cassis), and it might happen again in the next one in 2023, so this could be the largest change in the executive of Switzerland in maybe five or six years. I'd argue it counts. Julio 9 7 4 ◆ (Talk-Contribs) 12:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article is sufficient quality, news sources covered the event sufficiently. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Firstly, I don't think this qualifies as ITNR. Switzerland is (almost?) unique in having a collective head of government; ITNR would therefore apply to replacement of the entire council (which I appreciate doesn't happen in practice). It seems silly to apply ITNR to every change to the council membership. This issue only applies to whether the event is ITNR though, we can still consider it as a non-recurring event. Only two of the seven members were affected, the replacements had to be from the same parties, and there was no direct involvement by voters. So this isn't a very competitive or popular election. But I take the point that it's equivalent to the indirect elections of other heads of government. Whether replacement of 2/7ths of the head of government is sufficiently notable is a borderline judgement call. At normal times I might have said 'no', but we're in need of new blurbs - the most recent is a week old. The article is merely adequate, not great - it could do with some more prose on the results/reactions, and on the policies of the candidates. But it does meet our minimum requirements. I've added an altblurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I should note that being listed on ITNR is not specifically a requirement to post any item. I know this is claimed as an ITNR posting, but we're also allowed to post things just on the merits of the specific nomination, without asking for pre-approval from ITNR.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the point I made. We can still consider this as a stand-alone nomination. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article is good enough. We posted the UK prime minister changes, and I think this is of a similar significance. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is good to go. Vida0007 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb per my questions above, perhaps a rewrite to "Rosti and Schneider are elected to the SFC, replacing X and Y who (resigned/stepped down/lost re-election)" or something like that - but content is probably fine QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Needs work Copy-editing is required. For example, the first sentence has the ungrammatical “were be held”. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Andrew Davidson I am a bit surprised by this comment, where exactly do you see were be held? What word count? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the very first sentence, as I said. "By-elections to the Swiss Federal Council were be held..."
 * The second paragraph has the sort of tense errors which are typical of articles started in anticipation of an event, "only SVP candidates are standing for Maurer's seat and only SP candidates stand for Sommaruga's"
 * I could go on but the point is that the article needs careful, line-by-line proof-reading.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 21:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahh you meant the article and not the blurb...Thanks for the explanation. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - and to be clear, I would support a similar blurb for other partial changes of collective head of state or government. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am really glad to see the page nominated for ITN! I wrote some of it in a rush and I apologize for the mistakes, I re-read the page and corrected them as well as added even more information as well as aftermath, reactions, and added more journalistic sources; the article still needs information on the attribution of federal departments (which will happen in the next few hours as I'm posting this). I think this page would also greatly benefit from being re-read and sourced by a german-speaking wikipedian. Julio 9 7 4 ◆ (Talk-Contribs)  12:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hold until further improvements can be made to the article's quality. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  16:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a very vague !vote. What improvements would you like to see? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support As a national government election. DrewieStewie (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It's ITNR and the article looks good enough. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 07:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

China Covid Policy Changes

 * Oppose The nominated article is orange-tagged, has no relevant update in its long lead and is not linked in the proposed new blurb. Maybe the existing blurb should be updated with this new development but this proposal needs work. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaning support - The protests are basically over, so having the resolution of the ordeal put up might be for the best. But, as Andrew said, article needs work. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to suggest that everyone in China is happy with this outcome, and that there won't be protests in the future, but generally, it looks as if this is the end of this specific chapter of Chinese politics. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Andrew above. Article quality is not good enough for main page.  If someone wants this posted, they are going to need to do some work to bring it up to minimum standards.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless a better target article can be found. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Genevieve. Article is well-sourced but only a small sub-section of it (the "2022 outbreak" one) talks about the most recent COVID policy changes; another target article (most likely the 2022 COVID-19 protests in China) would be better. Vida0007 (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Don Luce (activist)

 * Comment Looks ready to post. Thriley (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Brief but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 07:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jan-Åke Edvinsson

 * Comment Can this article still be expanded? It has citations, though there are only six of them, and five of those come from the same site (the International Ice Hockey Federation's site). Vida0007 (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Likely could be expanded by searching for sources in Swedish. That will take a day or two to do. Flibirigit (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Article expanded. I reached the point of diminishing returns with online web searches. Flibirigit (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Long enough to qualify with 500+ words of prose. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found in expected spots. Earwig has little to complain about. This wikibio looks READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Boeing 747

 * Comment: I know I’m an aviation geek myself but I’ll stay neutral for now, at least until someone gives a more compelling argument on either side. To be honest if we post an ITN for this, it may also set a precedent for end of production for other less prominent things and well, just create a butterfly effect. But also given how iconic the 747 is in the world of aviation for the past 50 years it also seems worthy to post an ITN too. SBS6577P (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing my opinion to support per arguments by 331dot, KTC, SounderBruce etc. SBS6577P (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, article is FA quality, most major news sources are covering the story. Checks every box.  Would be proud to direct readers to this article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This isn't like Boeing's last plane ever, just of this model type. Not a significant news topic. --M asem (t) 13:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "This model type" is arguably the most well-known and iconic passenger aircraft ever made. Tube·of·Light 08:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - seeing global coverage and notable within the relevant field. I don't think this should set a precedent for posting less prominent production ends, but products around this level of popularity should see some recognition. As an aside, I think it should use a more modern photograph than one from 1980. For example, File:Qantas Boeing 747-438ER VH-OEI at LAX.jpg is from 2010. Quite a few to choose from in this category. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 13:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * the choice of image was deliberately made to avoid favouring any one airline over all the others. Mjroots (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Feels good to feature an FA. I would like a bit more writing about how and why the 747 ended production, but this is good as it stands too. Article seems recently updated in general, with data for last month as well :) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Not relevant news. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Not that significant in the grand scheme of things. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * oppose per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Is most news significant in the grand scheme of things? Does the earthquake in West Java have any lasting impact beyond being a tragedy, for example? 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  18:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the issues here is that this is a commercial entity, and thus giving Boeing that type of focus does feel a bit promotional, which we should strive to avoid. As noted by OP, this would suggest other major EOL of commercial productions should be included. This is different from saying, for example, NASA launching the last shuttle mission, as that is not a commercial element. M asem  (t) 20:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Good faith nom, but not that significant. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - If this is not posted, then it gives further proof to the principle that it doesn't matter how excellent or well-updated an article is; if it doesn't meet the arbitrary significance threshold, it will never get posted to ITN. So I don't know why people ever thought that article quality was somehow a mitigating factor that would allow less significant items to be posted.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  18:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Second this. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. End of a long period of production of an iconic aircraft. ITN is getting to the point where nothing is being posted and that's sad to see. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per 331dot.--Pithon314 (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, no comment on article quality. The 747 is a aircraft design that's iconic, extremely recognisable worldwide, and the end of something that's part of the airline industry for a very long time. No, we shouldn't post every EOL products, but I think this one is significant enough to be an exception. -- KTC (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support one of the most iconic airplanes in the world. Article is an FA. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's one product of one company. If we post this, we should also post e.g. Microsoft discontinuing Windows 7. Banedon (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Windows 7 didn't last for 50 years. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Did we blurb the discontinuation of Windows XP? It would've definitely qualified for a blurb in my eyes, but I recognize that the end-of-support for that was a rather gradual process. I don't know if it had as clear a (symbolic) end as the discontinuation of a physical product like the 747. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We didn't post end of support for Windows XP, and neither did we post the end of support for Windows 7 . Banedon (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Windows is still produced, just not Windows 7. It's like the difference between the first version of the 747 and the last one(the 747-8).  331dot (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You could equally argue that Boeing planes are still being produced, it's just not the 747. Banedon (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Microsoft produces other software too, that's not the point. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support A major landmark in aviation history. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support End of an era. BilledMammal (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Holds an influential place in aviation history as the first line of widebody jetliners and carried billions of people around the world.  Sounder Bruce  04:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - A significant landmark event in the aviation industry. 174.113.161.1 (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia is not a forum for product/brand advertising or PR Chrisclear (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Who is advertising anything? The aircraft is no longer being produced. No one here is saying "Buy a 747 now before they're gone!". They're already gone. That's the whole point here. Are you saying that any mention of any sort of product is barred from ITN? 331dot (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The company that makes the 747 plane is the company being advertised/promoted. As noted by others, the company is still making planes, just not this particular model. Just as a change in Windows version should not be posted to ITN, a change in plane model should also not be posted. Chrisclear (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see where it says "buy Boeing planes" or "Boeing is a great company" in the blurb, maybe I missed it. This isn't just some random model of plane, which is why it's hit the news. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So simply mentioning a company is now advertising? The Kip (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does advertise. We routinely use sponsored, commercial names for sports venues rather than the official, usually geographic names, even though the latter would be far more useful to readers. HiLo48 (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an issue to discuss with the venue, not us. WP:COMMONNAME as well. In many places(mostly the US I guess) the sponsored name is the official name.  Mentioning a name is not advertising any more than mentioning "HiLo48" advertises HiLo48. In any event, that's a side issue compared to mentioning a product, which is apparently barred from ITN now. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm obviously referring to places where there is an official name that mentions a location, and a sponsored one that doesn't. This is quite common around the world. Wikipedia inevitably uses the unhelpful, sponsored name. HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't advertise something that will no longer be produced. Completely fallacious argument. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. End of an era as mentioned above. Regards So  Why  10:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No wider repercussions - Boeing is still in business. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - The end of an era with not-insignificant implications for the future, in a world where 43.5% of commercial airliners are Boeing aircraft. Not incidentally, it means we can link to a featured article on the main page. What's not to like about that?--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral Truly the end of an era but also agree with GenevieveDEon. This would have been more ITN worthy if it is the final flight of the 747, but it isn't. Personally, I can see this being more qualified for the DYK page. Vida0007 (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's so far in the future jet fuel might be all-biofuel by then. The 747 will probably fly for decades and maybe fly last for a 3rd world airline poorer than the airlines who buy new planes (even some of the 3rd world airline planes were bought from Boeing or Airbus). Late stage jetliner model is anticlimactic, they try not to fly passengers with them even in countries where life is cheap. Maybe sometimes they have no other choice than to do it occasionally for logistics reasons but if it's cargo at least only 2-3 people will die if they crash and if it's a charter flight at least the passengers knew what they were getting into and traded an older plane for cheap tickets. Eventually even that has to stop cause after a certain number of pressurizations and depressurizations the plane can burst at altitude. This happened in the 80s I think (short Hawaii to Hawaii flights all day for many years). Many feet of ceiling just disappeared, hundreds of miles an hour sea level-equivalent wind, instant fog, a flight attendant blew out and fell miles to their death. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Supportwhile we have a lack of ITN suggestions... Its a beautiful image.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support End of an era. One of the most famous aircraft of all time, and certainly one of the most important. The Kip (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support End of the line for an iconic aircraft and the chance to showcase an FA quality article.Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It’s the end of production for an incredibly influential airplane. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per Blaylockjam10. TomcatEnthusiast1986 (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment How is this important news? It's just novel trivia that doesn't deserve front page news. Jtnav04 (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Besides being one of the most influential aircraft of all time, past consensus has been that high article quality can bolster the posting merit of a comparatively "less important" event. The Kip (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Even more importantly, ITN is not "front page news" and is not a news feed. It serves to highlight quality articles about recent events which are covered by news sources.  This ticks every box in that regard.  In Wikipedia, we follow sources, not feelings.  That you feel some way about something is irrelevant.  Reliable sources do cover this story, and we do have a quality article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment this should be seen very much as a one-off, and not setting a precedent for other end of production events. The B747 is IMvHO the 2nd most significant aircraft after the DC-3. The only other aircraft that would remotely approach this level of significance is the B737, which is not likely to cease production for the forseeable future. Mjroots (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

(Attention needed) Cristina Fernández de Kirchner jailed for corruption

 * Support once updated/improved Former head (and current VP) of a G20 state heading to prison is certainly a notable-enough event for the FP. The Kip (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I can see how this is huge news in Argentina. Article is in an ok state, updating aside, though that one “unbalanced viewpoint” tag should be looked into. Juxlos (talk)
 * Comment: There is an important thing to clarify: the trial had this result, right, but there will be an appeal once the full sentence is delivered (we got the important part today, but the judges must still clarify a lot of technical details before the case can be formally closed). Until those appeals are over, in many years, CFK will not be serving time in prison. If this is newsworthy, it will only be because of the sentence itself. See here Cambalachero (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * At ITN when dealing with highly prominent criminal cases, we typically post convictions, not sentences. In this case the sentence was more or less handed down with the verdict, so I included it with the nom. We do not typically hold off posting a conviction based on the likelihood of an appeal. In fact, I can't remember a single instance of that happening. All of which said, the article quality as it relates to coverage of CFK's legal issues is so poor (as of this comment) that if I were voting, I'd oppose my own nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Guardian reports that "though she is unlikely to serve any prison time soon as she has immunity due to her government roles and is expected to launch a lengthy appeals process that could take years." So, this is an ongoing situation rather than a done deal.  And, in any case, the nomination states clearly that quality is lacking.  BTW, notice that we're blurbing Anwar Ibrahim as the new Malaysian PM.  That politician was actually jailed due to accusations that some say were politically motivated and just a show trial.  The legal system is a political weapon in many places and unpicking the details to get at the truth isn't easy. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The conviction is not an ongoing situation.  We do not wait for appeals to be exhausted before posting a conviction.  If the conviction is tossed, that can be posted too.  A former head of state and current officeholder being convicted of a crime and barred from public office(as many want to do with Donald Trump) is significant, even if it is later thrown out(which is likely years away). 331dot (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Pretty big event, sending shockwaves through Argentina and South America. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. Article has a an orange tag in the "Image" section that needs fixing.  Article mentions nothing about the case except a single sentence on the conviction.  I would expect a significant several paragraphs covering the investigation, the charges, the trial, and the conviction.  If this is going to be posted on the main page, it needs a lot of work.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, oppose on article quality. The conviction of a former president (and current vice-president) on serious charges is significant, and 6 years is a serious sentence. Conviction is the relevant point for ITN to post - we don't wait for all possible appeals. However, the article has three orange-level tags on it, and contains very little information on the case. The 'legal charges' section seems to be referring to the early stages of this case, but in future tense and has no information on the result. The entire update is two near-duplicate sentences, containing no more information than is in the blurb. There needs to be at least a full paragraph of referenced prose, and the orange tags need to be addressed, before we can post in ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - We have precedents of posting convictions of former heads of state, including Peru's Alberto Fujimori, Israel's Moshe Katsav and Liberia's Charles Taylor, to mention some. Furthermore, Cristina is incumbent Vice President, which makes the news ever more relevant. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Highly notable conviction. Article is updated and ready as well.BabbaQ (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per above, notable conviction of a significant figure. Article appears to check out. Ornithoptera (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Very high-profile conviction and the article is okay, although there’s currently one subsection that has been orange-tagged. Vida0007 (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Coverage is insufficient in the article at this time. Significance qualification is met. 75.188.228.163 (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as a criminal conviction of a world leader. DrewieStewie (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support information on her legal issues I think is quite sufficient. If anyone wants to know more about them, some cases have their own Wiki articles. Orange tag should be removed. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This is older than the oldest current blurb, 2022 Swiss Federal Council election, which was from 7 Dec. Perhaps WP:ITNBALANCE will allow an WP:IAR posting later.—Bagumba (talk) 10:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mills Lane

 * Shrug - The article looks to have been updated. I'm just not sure whether or not it's the level of detail we would expect to post something to the Main Page.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , what do you mean by this? Curbon7 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is rated start-class in four Wikiprojects, and stub-class in a fifth. So it's difficult for me to tell if this is a stub or not, and we generally don't post stubs. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is not a stub, and has been reassessed for all WikiProjects. Flibirigit (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not ready: Article has multiple citation needed tags. Flibirigit (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Some citations are bare URLs which need a template. Flibirigit (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , WP:HEY. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good, nice work. DatGuyTalkContribs 19:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Indonesian extramarital sex ban

 * Oppose It's a new criminal code with about 600 laws about numerous moral offences such as blasphemy, insulting the president, &c. We'd need to see a relevant article and summarise the whole thing, not just cherry-pick some sensational detail. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per Andrew PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose without an article about this - it's hardly suitable.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No article. lol1 VNIO&NoBreak;🎌 ( I made a mistake?  talk to me ) 17:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no article. Sarrail  (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kirstie Alley

 * Support - Highly accomplished actress, a true joy on Cheers, Veronica's Closet, and many film roles. Filmography now fully sourced and updated. A few other subsections still needs sourcing, but the article overall looks good and I support it.--SitcomyFan (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would remove the DWTS tables, as those season show pages summarize all performances. But the Awards table still needs citations. M asem (t) 13:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed the DWTS tables, I know we have a significant reality TV editor contingent on here, but they get WP:UNDUE. Awards table is the last thing to fix up. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have sourced parts of the award table; finding list of nominations is hard, as the awards are old, some no longer exist, and some lists just include winners, such as Saturn Awards. Where can I find sources for these? If sources can't be found, should the awards without sources be removed? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I got the Saturn Awards sourced through Newspapers.com. The others I can't source. I've never even heard of "Viewers for Quality Television ⋅Awards", whatever that is. Can we consider this one good enough? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it looks good enough. There's only a handful unsourced now, mostly obscure awards, can either be left as is imo or removed and added to talk page for insertion later if/when sources found. Will see what others say but that's my opinion anyway. Good job on sourcing the others. SitcomyFan (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not ready : Article has multiple citation needed tags. Flibirigit (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For some second-rate awards that we can't find sources for. Not everything needs to be sourced for an ITN RD article, this should be good enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Time to prune off the unverifiable minor bits? --PFHLai (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I added some sources to these awards after spending time looking. Many of these are IMDb sources. Now I know usually IMDb is not considered a RS, but is it sufficent for awards like these? If not, please remove these or let me know and I'll remove them. Sprinkled among these results, I did find a few that might be considered reliable - photos of her attending one of the awards from getty images and a Yahoo article. And there were a couple of AVclub sources for a couple of the awards that might be considered ok. Overall, if only one or two of these are considered RS, or if none of them are, I understand. Please let me know. If these aren't suitable and none can be found, then I repeat what I said above - maybe we should put them on the talk page and remove from article itself? SitcomyFan (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: The article is much improved and well cited. Flibirigit (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is good to go, and is ready to be posted. The filmography and awards & noms sections have been fully cited now. Vida0007 (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nick Bollettieri

 * Support. I managed to find refs for some previously unsourced statements. To my eye, I think the article has reached sufficient quality for RD. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support., Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, no issues found (except for a few "citation needed" tags.) Sarrail  (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Sam Walton (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob McGrath

 * Support - Well known and accomplished. Filmography now fully sourced.--SitcomyFan (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not ready: Article still has two citation needed tags, and other citation errors. Flibirigit (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've sourced one of these and as things stand there are now no CN tags or other tags in the article. There is one minor citing error I'm not sure how to fix but I'm sure another editor can. I also added some sources to some other sentences that weren't tagged but just extra sources I found. I could not find a source for one cn statement so I removed it and added it to talk page so it can be put back if a source can be found. I'm sure it's true as it corresponds to facts stated in other sources from RS like Washington Post but as I couldn't find a source that actually stated it, I erred on side of caution and removed it. If you notice any other major issues with the article let me know and if I have time I might tackle it again. SitcomyFan (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Citation errors have been fixed, and there are no other issues. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: Ready, no concerns remain. Flibirigit (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Sam Walton (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Patrick Tambay

 * Support A part of the amazing set of drivers from France in the early 1980s and a two-time Grand Prix Winner. Article may need more references but seems good enough to publish in my opinion Crecy1346 (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems good enough to me now with the references. I would say that it is good enough to publish now. Crecy1346 (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support He was a prolific F1 driver in his time and won several GPs. The article needs just a few more references but he's a well-respected figure in the world of motorsports and deserves a spot. UberLordMetagross (talk) 1:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! UberLordMetagross (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) B-21 bomber unveiled

 * Oppose The plane has not "become operational" – it's still in development, has not even flown yet and is not expected to enter service for years.  This "unveiling" is not really news because the project has been ongoing for years – it's just a PR stunt – a photo-op.  And we still don't have much detail because the details are classified.   And the general background is not new.  I started another article over 7 years ago – Renovation of the nuclear weapon arsenal of the United States – about the long-term program which started in the Obama administration and has been continued by subsequent administrations.  The new bomber is part of the nuclear triad, which is also not new; it's a long-standing strategy.  Even the name of the plane is not new – it harks back to the Doolittle raid.  Hidebound militaries always love refighting the last war by clinging to obsolete weapon systems but what we see in Ukraine is that cheap drones and missiles are what works best now while manned aircraft, ships and tanks have not been effective. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia is not a forum for product advertising or PR. Chrisclear (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see that it's any more notable than a new type of ship, train or even car. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose we wouldn't post a new Chinese service rifle or a new French tank. Juxlos (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Volodymyr Kozhukhar

 * Not ready: The article has a citation needed tag. Flibirigit (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Flibirigit, I fixed it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: Article is now properly cited. Flibirigit (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Quentin Oliver Lee

 * Not ready : The article is still a stub. Flibirigit (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I added a lot more info and sources. It might still need some work in narrative flow but I think it should be almost ready now if you and other editors would like to take another look. SitcomyFan (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: Article meets citation criteria, and is no longer a stub. Flibirigit (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * support @ Thanks to your additional sources and info the article is no longer a stub. It has received the start status.  Ibjaja055 (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support Meets the criteria although I find the article being a bit short. Vida0007 (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Update 1 More info and another link and some more sources have been added to the article. There might still be more to add if other editors can find additional sources or someone who is more of an expert on Broadway. Am looking for more info/sources, will update below. SitcomyFan (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is no longer a stub, but still needs work. I gave links to operas, as many were missing. I am sorry, but don't understand the last sentence. The article would profit from some chronology, - why that last sentence after we read already that he died, and why a reference to the university where he studied three paragraphs later? Among others. I'm not the one to do that, knowing too little, but ping me when that is done, - he deserves to be mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think those issues and the chronology has been fixed now in latest update/restructure/copyedit. Let me know if you see any other issues, thanks! SitcomyFan (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Update 2 - a lot more info has been added from new sources, including his actual date of birth, home state/birth place, date he joined his church, marriage, a quote from an interview on his career transition, and some more info on his career overall. It's quite a bit fuller and more detailed now.SitcomyFan (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (continued from above) much better, but I still have no idea what "His onstage performance came Off-Broadway, in Heather Christian's Oratorio For Living Things." means (English not my native language), we still have NAU in career, so if he played Schicchi etc. at the university it should be there (makes a big difference!). You may also want to get ref numbers in numeric order. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It should read "His final onstage performance". Thanks for pointing that out and will check other roles. SitcomyFan (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not specified in sources whether role at NAU opera happened while he was a student there. He could have returned to perform after graduating once his career took off. I know there is an article that he returned to Arizona when in Phantom. So I think it's best to leave it in career for now unless a source specifies it was an undergraduate performance. Most of his other performances that it is listed with happened after his career took off in New York. SitcomyFan (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To try to deal with this issue, I've taken Early Career and Later Career subheadings out and just left it as Career. I grouped the roles together where chronology is known, then put the rest under Other roles, including the NAU one. I'll have a better look in a bit at his off-site links to see if I can get a better idea of dates. But overall I think the article is in very good shape now. Hope other editors agree! Thanks for all your input. SitcomyFan (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. It qualifies for RD. I commented out La bohème in the Broadway corner. If that was a mistake, please just bring it back. If it belongs to opera, please list it there, but best with a role, theatre and year. I linked the author of Oratorio of Living Things, - an article about the piece which is mentioned with two refs in her lead would be better, and seems possible. (Then remove the link to the author.) Any review would make the article better. I still think that Gianni Schicchi - a giant role - is a bit out of place among the others, but that's probably just me. Good luck for making it today. I'll go out now and won't influence any more. (Otherwise I'd look deeper into the sources, to find out myself when and where he was Gianni Schicchi - my favourite opera, and article written by my favourite editor.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help and input. I moved some of those roles to early roles. It seems he first appeared in the Puccini opera in 2013 but looking at his website (which I've now added to External Links) he may have later performed in it again somewhere else and while the sources list he played the title role, a few other characters seem to be listed. I'm not familiar with the opera in detail so I'm a bit confused. But given one of these performances was in 2013 and the reference to NAU, I think it's likely they may (at least some of them) have happened before he moved to New York or just after he graduated in 2012 so I listed them as early roles for now - this can always be corrected or clarified later, especially if he did perform any of them again later in New York.
 * I did find one more interesting thing - a 2019 role and a New York times review of it which called him "excellent" in it. I added it to the article too. SitcomyFan (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I found a ref for the phantom announcement, don't know how if you want it. I added a ref for Gianni Schicchi early and the 2013 roles don't need to be mentioned, the second character doesn't even sing. I added one One more Mozart role from there. Please take care not to copy from sources, - the line about his last performance was too close until I changed it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 19:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Prados

 * Support Needs work  The name is familiar as a prominent designer who worked on games such as Rise and Decline of the Third Reich. But the article currently says little of this.  Paging . Andrew🐉(talk) 09:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I wasn't familiar with him, and his article barely touches on his career in game design, but aside from his likely most successful game Third Reich, BGG says he has quite a few credits. I started the article for Spies! if not others. BOZ (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also think to ping @GreenC, @BD2412, @Paulturtle, and @Jclemens to see if they have any insight. BOZ (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Gamers Guide to Third Reich which I had back in 1986 had an opening article of Designers Notes (probably written by Don Greenwood but I don't recall). It said that Prados' original design was division-level, making it "an exercise in finger dexterity". Besides bringing the scale up to corps (or Soviet armies) the developer also had to "water down the airpower to manageable proportions". So although some of Prados' concepts - BRPs, quarterly turns, armor exploitation - remain in the game to this day, it had required significant development to get even the First Edition to press, before we get onto the subsequent redesigns (Third Edition 1981, A3R in 1992) which were mainly fixing historical realism problems (Prados disliked A3R and produced his own rival version in 2001 - I have a copy somewhere but have never actually played it). I've no idea how common this is for game designs.Paulturtle (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have expanded his work as a historian as well as added a new section on his wargaming. Obits appeared in both New York Times and Washington Post.Guinness323 (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Andrew Davidson how about now? BOZ (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Guinness323 has kindly made some substantial updates and with good sources like the obits in the NYT and Washington Post, we're good to go. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support after improvements. BOZ (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not ready: Article has multiple citation needed tags. Flibirigit (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Flibirigit, I don't see any. In which part of the article are those? BOZ (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The citation needed tags were resolved since my post. Please see the edit history of the article. There is still one unreferenced section to source. It is also unnecessary to ping me. Flibirigit (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The unreferenced section issue has been resolved. Guinness323 (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Kolbe

 * Non-oppose Actually not in too bad a state source wise, I only see a few spots in need of help. The article is also pretty holistic as far as his career. Not good enough for support, not bad enough for oppose = non-oppose. Curbon7 (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's better now per WP:HEY. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good to go.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Al Strobel

 * Article looks good/no tags and is now fully sourced. The news has now also been picked up by larger sources, including: Deadline (https://deadline.com/2022/12/al-strobel-dead-twin-peaks-one-armed-man-was-83-1235188929/), Entertainment Weekly (https://ew.com/tv/twin-peaks-star-al-strobel-dies-at-age-83/, Variety (https://variety.com/2022/tv/obituaries-people-news/al-strobel-dead-twin-peaks-the-return-1235449476/).--SitcomyFan (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: This wikibio currently has only 249 words of prose. Is there anything else to write about him? --PFHLai (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Added a bit more. Hopefully some other editors here can find/add some more to bio and support the nomination here. Thanks. SitcomyFan (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: Article is now long enough and properly cited. Flibirigit (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Najma Hameed

 * Oppose Article needs to be expanded. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Article does not have enough information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex-h (talk • contribs) 07:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Good faith nom, but article still has insufficient information about her. Vida0007 (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Still a stub with only 111 words of prose. --PFHLai (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Afzaal Ahmad

 * Oppose Article needs to be expanded. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Article does not have enough information. Alex-h (talk) 07:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is still a stub. Vida0007 (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Still a stub with only 95 words of prose. --PFHLai (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jharana Das

 * Oppose Article is not up to ITN standards in regards to article length and quality, as of now. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  17:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added some more info and sources to the article. Today is the last day for the nomination (it was nominated late) so if you or any other editors have time to take another look at it today and let me know if you feel it is ready/almost ready, how much more work it might need. I don't feel sufficiently qualified to add filmography tables and I think I've added quite a lot to her Career section - most of the information contained in sources. I feel it is sufficient now for ITN but interested to see what others think. SitcomyFan (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose : The article is still a stub. Flibirigit (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added some more info and sources to the article. Today is the last day for the nomination (it was nominated late) so if you or any other editors have time to take another look at it today and let me know if you feel it is ready/almost ready, how much more work it might need. I don't feel sufficiently qualified to add filmography tables and I think I've added quite a lot to her Career section - most of the information contained in sources. I feel it is sufficient now for ITN but interested to see what others think. SitcomyFan (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: The article meets citation criteria, and is no longer a stub. Flibirigit (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support: Like Quentin Oliver Lee's article above, I find this article short, but it meets the criteria anyway. Vida0007 (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

RD: Issei Sagawa

 * Support One cn tag and one unreliable source tag, but neither are for any particularly controversial information. It's good enough for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: The "In popular culture" section needs more sources (or trimming). --PFHLai (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The "In popular culture" section has been fixed by . The wikibio still has a few {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Three {cn} tags remaining, plus one {unreliable source} tag. Please add more REFs. -PFHLai (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not ready: As per above, multiple citation needed tags remain. Flibirigit (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Notable criminal, but the {cn} and {unreliable source} tags mentioned above are still present in the article. Vida0007 (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Sight & Sound poll

 * We can't run a blurb on an article that's currently at AfD.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  12:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it wasn't at AfD but up for speedy deletion as a copyvio, per WP:TOP100, and is now deleted. Fram (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If someone writes an article five times more in-depth than the 2012 entry, I would happily see it on ITN. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Should the above be reopened now that the article has been scrubbed of its copyright violations? -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 19:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support to reopen (also support to post ) Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support to reopen. I'd like to see this posted, and it's probably good enough to post, but it would be nice if the article was a little bit longer. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Re-Opened. --PFHLai (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality issues. The list article process is under 5k of text, and there's nothing to describe why these lists are important beyond "a bunch of critics named them". While the film article is better, the list article doesn't explain why this choice is so relevant/important. --M asem (t) 21:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality issues. No prose in the main text, just lists. --Tone 21:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I fail to see the significance of a re-rating of [mostly] the same movies every once in a while. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, on notability. There are hundreds of "top 100 movies of all time" lists, and this list is just as obscure as the rest of them. In particular, there has been almost no coverage of this event in major news sources. Nsk92 (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Has anyone here actually seen this supposedly greatest movie? Notice that it does not appear anywhere in this previous poll of polls.  Having got the gist of it, it's easy to see why it's the sort of movie that people walk out of.  The joke seems to be that the audience is made to suffer over three hours of dreariness to make them appreciate how stultifying domestic chores are.  Today's TikTok generation would soon be on their phones or out the door unless you forced them to watch in the manner of A Clockwork Orange (right). Andrew🐉(talk) 09:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This movie was listed 51st on 2012's list, and has always been listed highly by "BBC's the 100 Greatest Films", "TSPDT's 1,000 Greatest Films", "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die", etc. I had heard of it as a film buff, but hadn't seen it because, yeah, it does look like a difficult movie to watch. It didn't come out of nowhere, but it's indeed not a pop choice. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Has anyone here actually seen this supposedly greatest movie? For what it's worth: yes. I watched it back in 2018. It was actually showing in a small cinema in the city I lived in at the time, and a fair share of the audience was young people (though of course there is some selection bias since these were people who paid to watch the movie in the first place). The reason I decided to watch it is that it appears on the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die list, sure, but it's not that obscure of a movie. TompaDompa (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And would you place it at the top of the list? BTW, I find those 1001 movies are listed at Fandom.  FYI, here's 10 outstanding movies not on that list.  De gustibus non est disputandum! Andrew🐉(talk) 11:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Big Trouble in Little China
 * Carry On Cleo
 * Dr. No
 * Kelly's Heroes
 * Léon: The Professional
 * Police Academy
 * The Dam Busters
 * The Italian Job
 * The Ladykillers – the original, not the remake. Remakes are always bad, right?
 * Zulu


 * Oppose currently. It's not quite at the level of depth I would like this article to be at for a front-page feature. I agree with Masem; an explanation for the list's significance would be particularly useful. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't believe these "best of" lists are ITN material. YD407OTZ (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Nsk92. Banedon (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. One of the most notable rankings of films, released only once per decade, with a somewhat surprising first-place pick. There are only so many ways for the arts to be represented in ITN, and this is one of them. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 15:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- not ITN material. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - ITN notability aside, the article is in a poor shape. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gaylord Perry

 * Support Well cited and solid article depth. Looks good to post to me. RIP to one of the great ones. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  About a handful of citation needed tags outstanding.—Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:HEY,, all good now. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * AGF strike after cursory eyeballing.—Bagumba (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chuck Stobart

 * Support. One cn tag, but per WP:ITN one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article, so this appears ready for ITN. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the one remaining "citation needed" tag. Beanie Fan fixed some gaps as well. The article is now fully cited. Cbl62 (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 18:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)